Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Bill [Lords],

Not amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Hackney and New College Bill [Lords],

Leeds Corporation Bill [Lords],

Wakefield corporation Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ENGLISH NEWSPAPERS (DELIVERY).

Mr. LANSBURY: 1.
asked the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that on the 25th February, 1924, Mr. P. S. R. Anjaneyulu, for the Navayuga publishing house, wrote to the Director-General of Telegraphs and Posts complaining of the delay in the delivery of foreign mails addressed to that firm and also complaining of the censorship thus imposed, which the firm states has inflicted monetary loss upon them; that the papers thus delayed, censored, or undelivered include the following, amongst many others: the "Crusader," the "Unity," the "Nation," the "Daily Herald," the "Saturday Herald," the "Manchester Guardian Weekly," the "Living Age," the "Freeman," the "New Russia," the "Outlook," the "New Majority," and the "Islamic Review"; and if he will take steps to put an end to either the examination or censorship of newspapers in India?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): My Noble Friend has written to make inquiries regarding the alleged examination of the mails of the person named, and will let my hon. Friend have the reply as soon as it is received.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Is it a fact, as stated, that these papers are not allowed to go through?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have said there is no censorship.

Sir LEONARD LYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to these publishing houses that if they import really respectable papers, such as the "Morning Post"—

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that the discretion of the Government of India in prohibiting the entry of papers into India is not put a stop to in any way?

BRITISH TROOPS (DUTIES ON COMFORTS).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that duty at the rate of 15 per cent. is levied upon cakes and puddings consigned from England to members of His Majesty's forces stationed in India, and a duty of 75 per cent. is levied upon cigarettes; that the imposition of these taxes constitutes a great hardship; and whether something can be done to secure some relief from these duties?

Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The ordinary duties are levied on goods consigned to members of His Majesty's Forces stationed in India, and the Government of India see no reason to change this practice.

Viscount CURZON: Could not the hon. Gentleman again refer the matter to the Government of India to see whether this small concession to our forces, who very often serve under hard conditions on the frontier, could not be made?

Mr. RICHARDS: The question has been referred to them several times.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: How is it a hardship to the people in India unless the consumer pays the tax?

LIEUTENANT CLENDINNING.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received the reply from the Government of India as to the treatment of Lieutenant Clendinning?

Mr. RICHARDS: The reply has been received from the Government of India, and is being communicated to the War Office.

PLAGUE (PUNJAB).

Mr. MILNE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary for State for India if he will give the House any further information regarding the outbreak of plague in the Punjab?

Mr. RICHARDS: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the reply, which is somewhat long, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. MILNE: Are the conditions better or worse?

Mr. RICHARDS: They are rather better.

Following is the reply:

The Government of India have reported that 11 districts out of the 29 in the Punjab are infected, and that the mortality from the 1st January to the end of March is estimated at 38,000, including 25,000 deaths in March. Figures for the first two weeks of April have not yet been received, but in the week ending 19th April there were 12,393 deaths. The epidemic is less severe than in 1902, 1904, 1905, 1907 and 1915, but has assumed alarming proportions. The measures taken are chiefly directed towards inoculation and disinfection. Funds have been provided for additional staff in each infected district and for the adequate supply of plague vaccine. A vigorous inoculation campaign has been undertaken and resulted in 30,000 inoculations weekly for a considerable period. The total number of inoculations to the 19th April was over 236,000, which is a greater number than in any previous year since 1903. Conditions will favour a decline of the epidemic in the present month. A decline had set in in the Southern Punjab by the middle of April.

PRISONERS (TREATMENT).

Mr. MAXTON: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that political prisoners in the Benares Gaol, United Provinces, are asked to work a mill for extracting mustard oil, and that they are blind folded while yoked to these mills; whether any protest against such treat-
ment was made in India; and what orders have been passed, if any, on such protests?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have no information as to the particular case referred to, but the whole question of the treatment of prisoners included in what is known as the Special Division was very fully considered last year by the Governments in India and the Secretary of State in the light of the Indian Gaols Committee Report, and if the prisoners in question came under the above category, they are no doubt being treated in accordance with the principles laid down.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will my hon. Friend make inquiries as to whether the facts are as stated in the question?

Mr. RICHARDS: Yes. If my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will.

LEGISLATIVE RULES.

Mr. BAKER: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, seeing that the recent changes in the Legislative Rules of the Government of India were under contemplation and were being discussed with the India Office for the last two years, he will say whether any attempt was made to consult the wishes of the Indian Legislative Assembly during that period regarding the changes proposed; whether the Standing Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament was consulted about the contemplated changes; whether the decision was taken as a result of the changed personnel of the Indian Legislative Assembly; and whether he will consider the desirability of getting the views of the Indian Legislature before any further changes in the Rules are made?

Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first three parts of the question is in the negative. As regards the fourth part, the Indian Legislature is expressly debarred by Statute from power to alter these Rules, but the desirability of consulting that body before changes are made in these and other Statutory Rules is always considered when the proposed change could suitably be made the subject of such consultation.

TRADE UNIONISTS (MATUNGA WORKSHOPS).

Mr. BAKER: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in
view of the financial connection between the Government of India and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, he is in a position to give any information as to the victimisation of union men at the Matunga workshops?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have no knowledge of any such victimisation. If my hon. Friend can refer to a particular case, my Noble Friend will be prepared to have an inquiry made.

MILITARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. MORRISON: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has received any complaints as to the standard of education provided in the military schools in India; whether he is aware that a large number of parents prefer to send their children to outside schools; and whether he will have inquiries made into this matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: I am not aware of dissatisfaction on this matter, but if the hon. Member will supply me with any more specific information, I will have inquiries made.

GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (GRIEVANCES).

Mr. MAXTON: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Indian servants of the Government of India are debarred from bringing their grievances to the notice of non-official members, whether of the Central or Provincial Legislatures, apart from such things as may be covered by the Official Secrets Act; and whether the Government of the United Provinces have taken any steps on the Resolution regarding this matter, which was passed by the United Provinces Council on 27th February last?

Mr. RICHARDS: The Secretary of State for India is not aware of any rule prohibiting any servant of the Government of India from bringing his grievances to the notice of non-official members of the Central or Provincial Legislatures, provided that in so doing he does not infringe Rule 17 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules which prohibit communication to nonofficial persons without authority of documents or information which have come into his possession in the course of his official duties. With regard to the second part of the question I have no information.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIAN SUBJECTS (UNITED STATES).

Mr. BAKER: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Lalitpur municipality, in Northern India, has recently refused to give any concessions to an American on the ground that the United States of America has refused to naturalise a Hindu who had gone there; whether the Secretary of State has any information about the reasons given by the United States for discriminating against Indians; whether any steps have been taken to get this discriminating treatment rectified; and whether any representations have been received from the Government of India about this matter?

Mr. RICHARDS: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The refusal of the United States Government to naturalise Indians is due to a ruling of the Supreme Court that Indians are ineligible for United States citizenship. Representations have been made by His Majesty's Government, to the Government of the United States with a view to alleviating hardships resulting from this ruling. The Government of India and the Secretary of State have been in correspondence on this subject, and the Government of India have expressed their appreciation of the action taken by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. SIMPSON: Can the hon. Gentleman see his way to get these facts published in India, where there is much bitterness in regard to these American exclusions?

Mr. RICHARDS: I will see what can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (LIQUOR TRAFFIC).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the undertakings with regard to the liquor traffic in the mandated territories, as laid down in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, are being applied to His Majesty's tropical Colonies in Africa, or whether they are only being curried out in the mandated territories?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): Article 22 of
the Covenant deals only with mandated territories, but the Regulations dealing with the importation of spirits into the British Colonies and Protectorates in Tropical Africa are the same as those in force in the mandated territories, all being subject to the provisions of the Liquor Traffic Convention of St. Germain.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that in no way is the treatment of the tropical Dependencies in this matter any less stringent than in the case of the mandated territories?

Mr. THOMAS: The Regulations dealing with them are precisely the same.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Seeing that the Covenant of the League of Nations lays down prohibition in mandated territories, how is it that the policy is not carried out in the other territories which, according to the Colonial Secretary, are under the same Regulations?

Mr. THOMAS: If the right hon. Gentleman will put a question on the Paper, I will deal with it.

Mr. JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to read Article 22 of the Covenant, which is explicit on the subject?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not a fact that Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations lays down that there shall only be prohibition of the abuses of the liquor traffic and not prohibition of the liquor traffic itself?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the point raised in the question.

Mr. JONES: On the personal question, may I explain at the end of questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

BOUNDARY COMMISSION.

Viscount CURZON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps the Government propose to take to put Article 12 of the Irish Treaty into operation?

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the necessary steps to be taken by the Government to give effect to the letter and spirit of Article 12 of the agreement
for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland; and when it is proposed to take such steps?

Mr. THOMAS: The Irish Free State Government having requested His Majesty's Government to constitute the Boundary Commission and having appointed Mr. John McNeill as their Commissioner, His Majesty's Government have requested the Governor of Northern Ireland to make a similar appointment. Steps are being taken to appoint a qualified person as Chairman.

Colonel ASHLEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of any informal negotiations between the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the Free State in order to settle this very difficult question? Is there any hope that negotiations are going on?

Viscount CURZON: Has any reply, so far, been forthcoming from the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland?

Mr. THOMAS: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

Colonel GRETTON: Have His Majesty's Government taken any steps to define the limits of inquiry in the arbitration proposed?

Sir W. DAVISON: Do the Government adhere to what has been laid down by the three previous Governments, that under no circumstances territory can be taken from Ulster without Ulster's consent?

Mr. THOMAS: His Majesty's Government have announced that they will give effect to Article 12 of the Treaty. I have nothing to add to that.

Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree to the interpretation of this Clause in the Treaty, as set forth by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), when the Treaty was going through the House of Commons?

Mr. THOMAS: It is not our duty to interpret Clause 12, but to give effect to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

HUNGARY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether
he is satisfied with the progress made by the tribunal set up in June, 1920, under the Treaty of Trianon to deal with Hungarian debts due to British claimants; whether he will have inquiry made as to the delays caused by the action of the Hungarian representative; and whether he is aware that the absence of a Hungarian courier has been made the excuse for the delay of six weeks in the despatch of documents to Budapest?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. The Anglo-Hungarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal was formally constituted in August, 1921, shortly after the ratification of the Treaty of Trianon, and not, as stated by the hon. Member, in June, 1920. No cases were ready for hearing till July, 1923, when the tribunal met and disposed of all cases then ready. This tribunal has made such satisfactory progress with the work entrusted to it, that at the end of its last sitting (23rd January, 1924) it had disposed of all the cases that were ripe for trial. At the present moment only six cases are ready for hearing. I am not aware of any instances of delay of the kind referred to in the question, but if the hon. Member will kindly furnish particulars of the case cited in the last part of the question, I will have inquiries made.

Mr. SAMUEL: Who is the controlling authority to see that the provisions of the Treaty are carried out in regard to the tribunal?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I must have notice of that question.

GERMAN PAYMENTS.

Captain W. BENN: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is willing to grant a return, to the latest convenient date, showing, separately, the total payments made by Germany on account of reparation, restitution, armies of occupation, clearing house operations, commissions of control, and any other special payments, including those under Articles 58, 124 and 125 of the treaty?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Graham): I have been asked to reply. I agree that a return in this form would be
valuable, but His Majesty's Government is not in possession of the full information required to compile it. I am, however, taking steps to inquire whether the Reparation Commission, which, though not directly concerned with the payments under certain of the heads named has close relations with all the Allied Governments, could see its way to undertake the preparation and publication of a statement on these lines.

Colonel GRETTON: If information is not available in regard to all nations concerned, will the Financial Secretary give an answer so far as it affects this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is a little difficult to say offhand, but if the House will await the steps we are going to take, I think very full information will be forthcoming.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman give attention to Article 297?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAWLING PILOTAGE DUES, NORWAY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in possession of further information with regard to the proposed action of the Norwegian Government to compel all trawlers calling at Trömsoe to pay pilotage dues; what action he has been able to take in the matter; and if he is aware that foreign trawlers calling at British ports or passing through British waters do not suffer a similar compulsion?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): His Majesty's Minister at Christiania is discussing this matter with the Norwegian Government and I would prefer to make no statement until I have received his report, which is expected shortly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know when the report has been received?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT: TEMPORARY MIXED COMMISSION, PRAGUE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs who are the British representatives on the League of Nations extra sub-committee of the Temporary Mixed Commission for Disarmament now meeting at Prague; and what are the instructions of His Majesty's Government to its delegates on the question of the private manufacture and traffic in arms and munitions of war?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no representative of this country on the sub-committee referred to. No question of instructions would in any case arise since the members of the Temporary Mixed Commission and consequently of its sub-committee do not represent their respective Governments, but act in a purely individual capacity.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE (RECRUITMENT).

Major HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if there has been any, and, if so, what, change in the method by which the Foreign Office is recruited; and from what date the change, if any, dates?

The PRIME MINISTER: Since July, 1907—with the exception of the War period when no examinations were held, and the period 1919 to 1922 when special arrangements were made under the Reconstruction Regulations for admission, after passing a qualifying examination and appearing before a Board of Selection, of candidates with war service—the examination for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service has been held concurrently with the examination for the administrative class of the home Civil Service, Indian Civil Service, Eastern cadetships and the Colonial Services. It is identical with that examination except in so far as a high standard of qualification in certain modern languages is required from candidates for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service. Candidates for the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service are required to appear, previously, before a Board of Selection whose function it is to decide which candidates possess suitable qualifications. In 1919 the property qualification formerly required of candidates for the Diplomatic Service was abolished, in accordance with the recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service of 1914.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the Prime Minister say what he meant when he stated during the Recess that some change had been made since the accession to office of his Government in the recruitment for the Foreign Office?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Member has misread my speech I said that changes had been made to which we had previously taken exception, and those changes are embodied in the answer I have given.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not a fact that the administration of the British Foreign Office is the admiration and envy of every foreign nation?

Mr. AYLES: Has the property qualification for candidates been abolished, and, if so, is the salary now paid adequate?

The PRIME MINISTER: That question is answered in the last paragraph of my reply. It has been revoked, and salaries have been adjusted accordingly.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKESTAN (REVOLT).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any authentic information from our Consul-General in Kashgar or from other sources with regard to the revolt in Turkestan led by General Sytcheff; and what steps he proposes to take, in view of the allegations in the Russian Press stating that the revolt in Afghanistan has been inspired by the English?

The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first part of the question, His Majesty's Government have no official information regarding the details of this revolt. In reply to the second part of the question, I take this opportunity of stating that the allegations stated to be made by the Russian Press to which the hon. and gallant Member refers are entirely fantastic and devoid of all foundation. His Majesty's Government do not propose to take any further action in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EVICTIONS AND RENT RESTRICIONS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 22.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention
of the Government to bring forward any further proposals for legislation relating to evictions or rent restrictions?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government have not, since a majority of the House declined to allow their proposals to go to a Committee, decided to bring in any further proposals for legislation relating to eviction or rent restriction.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a Bill has been under consideration for a considerable time in Committee upstairs, and that the hon. Member has adopted one of the most unscrupulous forms of opposition?

Captain BENN: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the private Member's Bill, the Distressed Tenants Bill, and can he say whether the Government have come to any decision in regard to it?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have not up to the present moment come to any decision in regard to that Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Sir K. WOOD: 23.
asked the Prime Minister when it is proposed to introduce legislation dealing with old age pensions?

The PRIME MINISTER: As soon as the details of this Bill have been finally settled it will be introduced at the first opportunity.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any approximate date when this long-delayed Measure will be brought forward?

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make any concession retrospective in regard to old age pensions?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the House will wait for the introduction of the Bill before we give any details.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIAN WOOL (BRITISH IMPORTS).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 24.
asked the Prime Minister the approximate amount of wool imported to Great Britain from Australia in the last six months; and how-does this compare with the six months of the previous period?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have been asked to reply. The quantity of raw wool registered as imported into the United Kingdom, consigned from Australia, during the six months ended March, 1924, was 1,096,493 centals of 100 pounds. During the six months ended March, 1923, the quantity so imported was 2,143,496 centals.

Sir F. WISE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the delay in the export of wool from Australia to this country has been caused by the monetary situation between London and Melbourne?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I cannot say without notice; but the difference in the figures I have given is really due to the fact that last June we received the last consignment of the stocks held up to be disposed of by the Wool Realisation Committee.

Sir F. WISE: Has the hon. Gentleman looked into the question of the monetary situation between here and Melbourne?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have not, but I should be very glad to do so.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that it was held up through the shortage in the exchange between the two countries, and should not the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary look into the matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I will certainly look into it, and into any point which the hon. Member brings to my notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME).

Viscount CURZON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Cabinet Committee upon the shipbuilding programme for the Royal Navy has as yet completed its labours; and whether any statement can yet be made upon it?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon Gentleman expect to be able to make a statement on Thursday, or at an early date?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope the Noble Lord does not minimise the great
importance of this matter, and the necessity of a very thorough investigation.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this question will be discussed on the Navy Votes on Thursday?

The PRIME MINISTER: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUDGET.

MOTOR VEHICLES (TAXATION).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the resolution agreed to by this House, without a Division, on 1st April last on the subject of the present system or taxation of mechanically-propelled vehicles, he will undertake that the Government, without waiting for the long-delayed Report of the Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Transport, shall, at the earliest opportunity, introduce a Bill in accordance with the terms of that recommendation, so that the new-system may come into operation on the 1st of January, 1925?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I have been asked to answer this question. I am not in a position to express any opinion on the subject until I receive, and have had an opportunity of considering, the Report of the Departmental Committee, which, as I have already stated, I expect in June.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: As the hon. Gentleman is aware that it is the general wish of this House that there should be this change in the basis of taxation from horse power to petrol will he not take steps to carry out the wishes of this House, as otherwise nothing can be done until January, 1926?

Mr. GOSLING: I do not think that it would be right to do anything until I get the Report and see what is said.

NEW IMPORT DUTIES.

Mr. ERSKINE: 31.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that there is a glut of motor cars in the United States, that the output cannot be absorbed in that country, and that arrangements are in course of preparation for dumping the surplus stock in
this country as soon as the McKenna Duties expire; and whether he proposes taking any steps, and, if so, what, to prevent the resultant closing down of the motor works in this country and the consequent unemployment?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am informed that there is no evidence that there is a glut of motor cars in the United States of America, and that although the entire output is not normally absorbed in that country, by far the greater portion is so absorbed, and there are no indications of any preparations for the dumping of surplus stocks in the United Kingdom.

Mr. ERSKINE: Has the hon Gentleman not read the newspapers at all lately?

Mr. GRAHAM: Perhaps a suitable reply to the hon. Gentleman is to recall that in 1923 the United States produced 4,000,000 vehicles, of which 96 per cent. were absorbed locally and only 4 per cent. were sent to the rest of the world.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries by telegram?

Mr. PRINGLE: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Goodrich Tyre Company are setting up works in this country, which does not indicate any dumping?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is giving information.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 74.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the grave apprehension which the proposed repeal of the McKenna Duties is causing to those in the industries affected, he can see his way to agree to give a day in the immediate future for a discussion on this subject?

Mr. GRAHAM: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the statement which the Lord Privy Seal will make after Questions to-day.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In view of the widespread fear of unemployment throughout the country, will the hon. Gentleman agree to receive a deputation of working men from the industries affected?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot at the moment make any statement about deputations or anything else, because my right hon.
Friend the Lord Privy Seal, in a minute or two, will make a statement on the general question, and I think it will be better to dispose of that first. Then I will take that point into consideration.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the hon. Gentleman immediately make that suggestion to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

TAXATION (ARREARS).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the amounts outstanding in respect of Income Tax, Super-tax, and Excess Profits Duty on the 31st March; and what were the similar figures for 31st March, 1923?

Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply (of which I am sending him a copy) given by my right hon. Friend on the 15th April to a question by the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr. H. H. Spencer). The corresponding arrear of Excess Profits Duty (and Munitions Levy) at 31st March, 1923, was £210,000,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUNDAY POLITICAL MEETINGS.

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: 27.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the growing concern amongst all sections of the community at the increasing practice of organising meetings for political propaganda on Sundays; and whether His Majesty's Government proposes to take any action in the matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have received no representations which would tend to confirm the statement in the first part of the hon. Member's question: the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. THURTLE: May we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that he has no intention of imposing upon the English people the dreadful Scottish Sunday?

Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these Sunday meetings throw extra work upon the newspaper workers?

Mr. PRINGLE: Are we to take it that the Prime Minister's statement as to the Scottish Sabbath to the Free Church Council was purely academic?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.

Mr. LUMLEY: 28.
asked the Prime Minister if the Government propose to consult the leaders of the other two parties before any agreement is concluded with the Russian delegation?

The PRIME MINISTER: The usual procedure in making such agreements will be followed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTY COURTS BILL.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether, now that the House has met after the Easter Recess, he can make a definite statement as to when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the County Courts Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government hope to be able to take the Second Reading of this Bill one day next week.

Sir W. de FRECE: Will the Government give facilities for the passage of this Bill this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: it is a Government Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS INCREASE ACT, 1920.

Sir W. de FRECE: 32.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to introduce the Bill amending the Pensions Increase Act, 1920?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Lord Privy Heal on Thursday last in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Penny).

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 33.
asked the Prime Minister if any further steps have been taken by His Majesty's Government with a view to the recognition of the Government of Mexico?

The PRIME MINISTER: Sir T. B. Hohler has been appointed to proceed on a special mission to Mexico to investigate and report on the general political situation in that country.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: When will Sir T. B. Hohler resume his post?

The PRIME MINISTER: Sir T. B. Hohler at the moment has gone to Mexico on a special mission to report on special circumstances.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: Will he resume his post when he returns from Mexico?

The PRIME MINISTER: I will just wait and see.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD COAST (EMPLOYMENT OF NATIVES).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there has been introduced into the Gold Coast Colony, under the sole authority of the Executive Council and without any reference to the Legislative Council, an ordinance requiring (under severe pains and penalties for default) all European employers to obtain a licence to employ, and all domestic servants a licence to engage with, Europeans; that this ordinance requires photographs of each employé to be affixed to the licence, coupled with the thumb and finger prints of both hands; that, after having paid the licence fee, the applicant is further required to forward at his own expense two copies to the criminal investigation department; and what action does he propose to take in the matter?

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member no doubt refers to certain rules which have recently been passed by the Governor-in-Council of the Gold Coast under the powers conferred by the Regulation of Employment Ordinance of the Legislature of the Colony. I may explain that the consent of the Legislative Council for such action is not necessary in cases where the Governor-in-Council is empowered under an Ordinance to issue rules and regulations. The provisions of the Rules are undoubtedly of a stringent character, and I propose to ask the Governor to explain the special circumstances which are considered to render them necessary.

Mr. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that these rules will not be put into force until he has had an explanation?

Mr. THOMAS: Obviously my object in asking for the special reasons is to satisfy myself before the rules are sanctioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA (LAND ALIENATION).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how much of the land of Northern Rhodesia has been alienated to white and Indian immigrants, respectively; whether these alienations have been under freehold or leasehold title; and whether leases are subject to periodic review and adjustment?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not at present sufficient information to enable me to answer this question, but I will obtain a report on the subject from the Governor of Northern Rhodesia?

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

LAND TENURE.

Mr. SNELL: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the observations of the Governor of Kenya Colony have been received upon the Report of the Kenya Land Tenure Commission; and whether His Majesty's Government is now able to adopt the recommendations of this Commission?

Mr. THOMAS: A despatch has been received dealing with some of the points covered by the Report, but other despatches are still on the way. Until I have received and considered them, I regret that I can make no statement.

MASAI TRIBES.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 46.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to state whether the investigation into the position of the Masai tribes in Kenya Colony, promised by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 9th July last, has yet been carried out; whether the whole of the fine of 10,000 head of cattle has been imposed; if not, how many cattle have been taken by the Government; if so, how these cattle have been disposed of by the Kenya Government; and what are the total proceeds received from the sale of the cattle constituting this fine?

Mr. THOMAS: The investigation has been delayed through ths absence on leave of the officer in charge of the Masai Reserve and the ill-health of an unofficial
member with long and close experience of the tribe. I regret the delay and I have given instructions for the inquiry to be speeded up. The fine levied amounted to 9,915 head of cattle, sheep and donkeys, of which 4,047 were returned to the Masai. The stock on hand were sold for £4,326, and, after allowing for compensation and other expenditure in connection with the disturbances, a balance of £2,509 remained, which will be partly deposited in the Native Trust Fund and partly spent on works of benefit to the Masai.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE (MAISONS TOLEREES).

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has yet received a copy of the Bill which it is proposed to pass in Singapore governing the control of the maisons tolérées in that dependency; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to take any action with regard to this Bill?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes, I have recently received a copy of the draft Bill, but am not yet in a position to say what action it is proposed to take with regard to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAURU (PHOSPHATE).

Mr. CLAYTON: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the output of phosphate at Nauru and Ocean Island in the period of 3½ years since these deposits came under Government control on the 1st July, 1920, to the 31st December, 1923; and to what countries, and in what quantities, was this output distributed?

Mr. THOMAS: 1,253,280 tons, distributed to United Kingdom 32,300 tons; to Australia 794,570 tons; to New Zealand 126,800 tons; and to other countries 299,610 tons. The corresponding percentages are 3, 63, 10, and 24, respectively.

Mr. CLAYTON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long it is since the last shipment of Nauru or Ocean Island phosphate was made to the United Kingdom; and for what reason has so small a proportion of the output been shipped to the United Kingdom?

Mr. THOMAS: The last shipment to the United Kingdom was made on 11th November, 1921. The main factor in determining the amount shipped has presumably been the price.

Mr. CLAYTON: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reduction has there been in the f.o.b. price of Nauru/Ocean Island phosphate since the last shipment was made to the United Kingdom; what approximate reduction has there been in the present c.i.f. price compared with the last c.i.f. price paid; and how does the present approximate c.i.f. price of Nauru/Ocean Island phosphate in the United Kingdom compare with its pre-War c.i.f. price?

Mr. THOMAS: I am informed that the present f.o.b. price of Nauru/Ocean Island phosphate is about 15s. a ton below that at which the last cargo was shipped to the United Kingdom. The present approximate c.i.f. price in the United Kingdom is about 42s. below that of the last shipment. The present approximate c.i.f. price in the United Kingdom is about 3s. above the pre-War price.

Mr. BECKER: Why does the right hon. Gentleman give us only the approximate price instead of the actual price?

Mr. THOMAS: Because these are approximate figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAUSANNE CONFERENCE (CANADA).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir E. GRIGG: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that on 2nd April the Prime Minister of Canada stated to the Canadian House of Commons that Canada had not been invited to send representatives to the Lausanne Conference; that in the same statement Mr. Mackenzie King contrasted the procedure adopted at the Lausanne Conference with that previously adopted at the Paris and Washington Conferences; and that the Canadian Government informed the British Government in a despatch, dated 31st December, 1922, that in view of this difference of procedure Canada could not be expected to append her signature to any instruments negotiated at Lausanne; and whether, in view of Mr. King's further statement that Canada would make no objection to the publication of the correspondence, he will under-
take to lay it upon the Table of this House?

Mr. THOMAS: I have read the statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada, in the Canadian House of Commons on 2nd April. I understand that, on 24th April, he stated in answer to a question that he thought that he would be in a position later on to make a further statement. As regards the publication of papers, I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member on 9th April.

Sir E. GRIGG: In view of the difficulty which there is in reconciling statements in this House and those in the Canadian House of Commons, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in the interests of the British public and of the British Government papers should be laid?

Mr. THOMAS: As I have explained to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, this Government have no objection to laying the papers but, as he is aware, by agreement made at the Imperial Conference, the authority of all the Dominions must be obtained. The authority in this case having been refused the Government have no alternative.

Sir E. GRIGG: Does that apply to correspondence solely between the Canadian Government and this Government, the Canadian Government having stated that they are willing to publish papers?

Mr. THOMAS: No one knows better than the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Resolution I have referred to enables any one Dominion to object.

Mr. PRINGLE: In view of the fact that this is a correspondence solely between Great Britain and Canada, can there be any objection to publication, seeing that the Dominion Government are anxious for publication?

Mr. THOMAS: As a matter of fact, it is not correspondence solely between Canada and this country. The whole correspondence is with a number of Dominions, and not with Canada alone.

Sir E. GRIGG: Can the right hon. Gentleman undertake to lay papers containing solely the correspondence between the British Government and the Canadian Government?

Mr. THOMAS: I will undertake to submit the proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA GOVERNMENT RAILWAY (MANAGING DIRECTOR).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a Report from the Governor of Jamaica regarding the use of his power to declare a matter of paramount importance in connection with a recent vote of the elected members of the Legislative Council of Jamaica on the salary of the managing director of the Government railway; what has been his reply; and whether he will support the Governor in any action he may take to protect the managing director from the attacks that have been made upon him?

Mr. THOMAS: I have received a telegram from the Governor on the subject, but I propose to defer consideration of the matter until I am in receipt of a full Report.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this officer is an officer of wide experience, and may we, therefore, take it that no action will be sanctioned which is prejudicial, without a full and comprehensive inquiry?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it true, as reported in to-day's papers, that this official has been given leave?

Mr. THOMAS: I think it would be better not to express an opinion until I have had a full Report, but equally, in fairness to the official in question, I should say that all the evidence tends to show that he is a most efficient and capable man, and nothing will be done to prejudice his position until a full Report is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (TREATY).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he proposes to introduce a Bill, or Bills, dealing with the Treaty with Iraq and the protocols thereto; when the Bill, or Bills, will be introduced; when the Treaty and protocols will be dealt with by the Assembly in Iraq; and whether approval by the Iraq Assembly will be required prior to the introduction of the Bills in Parliament?

Mr. THOMAS: The Treaty and connected documents are now under the consideration of the Iraq Constituent
Assembly. I can make no statement at present as to what further action will be taken by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (LAND PURCHASE).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 44.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the promised Bill to guarantee the principal and interest of the Irish Free State bonds in connection with the completion of land purchase in the Irish Free State will be introduced; and whether the Bill will require a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means?

Mr. THOMAS: His Majesty's Government are not yet in a position to announce a definite date for the introduction of the Irish Free State Land Purchase Loan (Guarantee) Bill. The reply to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that it will not be indefinitely postponed, in view of the importance to a considerable number of people, tenants and landlords, of the speeding-up of the machinery for the completion of land settlement?

Mr. THOMAS: It is only fair to say that the Government accept the principle of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE WATERS (PIRACY).

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can now supply any further information as regards recent frequent piratical attacks on British ships in Chinese waters, and as to the results of the different steps he has taken in this matter; whether the Hong Kong Government have decided that in the case of death or disablement of British officers through these attacks they will pay certain compensation, but, at the same time, that this provision is not intended to relieve the shipping companies of their responsibilities in the matter; whether the British owners of the vessels concerned have been approached on this matter by the Colonial Office; and whether any information can be given as to what provision of a similar kind they intend to make?

Mr. THOMAS: I am awaiting a report, which I have no doubt will deal with the question of compensation. Meanwhile escorts have been arranged for vessels sailing in convoys. As a temporary measure, the General Officer Commanding has been authorised to detail British troops as guards on merchant ships The answer to the last two parts of the question is in the negative.

Viscount CURZON: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to do anything with regard to increasing the use of wireless in ships employed in those waters, in view of the increased protection that would thus be given?

Mr. THOMAS: The difficulty that has arisen is now being considered in its widest aspects.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (RAW COTTON).

Sir W. de FRECE: 47.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he if aware that most of the raw cotton from East Africa is now being bought by Japan; and whether the British taxpayer will be asked to provide further large sums of money for the purpose of benefiting trade which is directly in competition with this country?

Mr. THOMAS: There are some Japanese buyers of cotton in Uganda, but no direct shipments are made to Japan. Of the cotton which is consigned to India (rather more than half the total crop) some certainly goes on to Japan, but I should like to know on what figures the hon. Member bases his statement that most of the crop goes to Japan. It is not possible in a country in which, by international convention, there is complete freedom of trade to limit the destination of cotton, nor is it desirable to restrict the grower's freedom to sell his cotton to the best advantage. If foreign users of this type of cotton buy from East Africa, there is more of the same type available for Lancashire from other sources.

Sir W. de FRECE: With reference to the first part of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. THOMAS: No. We have much more official and reliable information than that can possibly be, and the answer Which I have given is based on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION.

Mr. RHYS: 50.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department when the roads and approaches at the British Empire Exhibition will be in a fit state for pedestrian traffic; when the amusements section will be open; and whether he is aware that a large number of telephone boxes are not yet connected with any exchanges?

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. LUNN): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Lincoln on 1st May. With regard to telephone boxes, I am informed that out of the 61 provided, 51 are complete and 10 are in course of completion.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question referred to was not asked, because the hon. Member mentioned was not in his place to ask it? Cannot we now have some information as to what is being done? I have been to Wembley, and I can tell him that the situation is getting worse.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

TRIBUNAL OF INVESTIGATION.

Mr. LAMB: 51.
asked the Minister of Agriculture when the final Report, of the Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation will be published; and what action he proposes to take in respect to the recommendations contained in the interim Reports of the tribunal?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I am informed that the Agricultural Tribunal hope to present their final Report to the Prime Minister this week. The question of publication will then be considered, but, as I understand that the Report will be a somewhat lengthy document, the hon. Member will appreciate that printing may take some time. With regard to the second part, so far as the recommendations have not been adopted, or rejected by the country at the last General Election, it is my intention to defer taking any further action until they have been considered in conjunction with the forthcoming final Report.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. BLACK: 52.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the exact position on 1st May with regard to the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in England and Scotland?

Mr. BUXTON: The position with regard to foot-and-mouth disease on the 1st May was more satisfactory than on any previous day since the commencement of the outbreak in August last year, 63 outbreaks on separate farms having been confirmed during the month of April, as compared with 215 in March, 308 in February, 582 in January, and 1,252 in December. During April itself there has also been a steady decrease, the number of fresh cases confirmed during the last half of the month being 20 as compared with 43 in the first half. I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT particulars of the distribution of these 20 cases, together with other statistics relating to outbreaks of the disease.

Mr. STURROCK: Does any one of these cases apply to Scotland?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes; the cases that have occurred have applied to 11 counties in Scotland in the course of the outbreak.

Mr. STURROCK: On the 1st May last were there any indications of foot-and-mouth disease in Scotland?

Mr. BUXTON: Outbreaks disappear from the list as the restrictions are removed, and it is impossible to be absolutely up to date.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is there any truth in the statement which appeared in the newspapers two or three days ago that a remedy for this scourge by inoculation had been discovered?

Total number of outbreaks confirmed—3,060.


Total number of counties affected—39 in England; 2 in Wales; and 11 in scotland.


—
Cattle.
Sheep.
Pigs.
Goats.


Total number of animals slaughtered or authorised to be slaughtered.
103,138
42,969
47,693
125


Percentage of animals slaughtered to total animal population of Great Britain.
1.4%
0.2%
1.7%
—


Estimated gross compensation payable—£3,237,000.


Estimated receipts for salvage of healthy carca-es—£481,750.


Estimated administrative expenses—£433,000.


Total net expenditure—£3,188,250.

Mr. BUXTON: Many remedies exist and are well confirmed, but unless they are sufficiently rapid they are not of effective use, as what is required is an immunising agent, which has not yet been discovered.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Have any of the cases reported in April referred to fresh outbreaks on farms that have been restocked?

Mr. BUXTON: I think not, but I will ascertain.

Following are the particulars:

The 20 outbreaks in the last half of April were distributed as follows:


England.


Bedfordshire
…
…
1


Leicestershire
…
…
2


Middlesex
…
…
2


Norfolk
…
…
3


Nottinghamshire
…
…
1


Staffs
…
…
2


Warwickshire
…
…
1


Yorkshire (N.R.)
…
…
4


Yorkshire (W.R.)
…
…
1


Scotland.


Ayrshire
…
…
2


Lanark
…
…
1

There has thus been steady progress in the eradication of the disease, and the fact that this progress has not been even more rapid is due to the extraordinary infectivity of foot-and-mouth disease and the widespread character of the recent infection.

The following is a summary of the position from the 27th August, 1923, up to the 1st May, 1924:

MILK PRICES (WARWICKSHIRE).

Mr. E. BROWN: 53.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the average retail price of milk in the administrative county of Warwick and the average price paid to the producers in the same area?

Mr. BUXTON: I understand that most contracts for milk delivered to Birmingham for the six months April to September of this year were made at 11½d. per gallon delivered at buyer's station. I have no information as to the prices paid to producers in the administrative county of Warwick. The usual retail prices in those towns in Warwickshire for which information is available are 5d. per quart in some cases and 6d. in others. As the quantities sold are unknown, it is not possible to give an average for the whole county.

Mr. A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman take such steps as may be in his power to obtain information as to the prices paid to producers; and is it not eminently desirable that we should know, not only the prices charged to the consumers, but the prices paid to the producers?

Mr. BUXTON: I will see if we can collect further statistics, but I must consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the cost.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: How can the hon. Gentleman's Department frame a policy to check profiteering if he has not the necessary information on which to act?

Mr. BUXTON: Several of the recommendations of the Linlithgow Report are being acted upon.

OREDITS (INFORMATION).

Mr. E. BROWN: 54.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if any pamphlets are avail able for the use of agriculturists giving information as to the grant of credits; and, if so, where are they to be obtained?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes, Sir. Explanatory pamphlets may be obtained on application to the Ministry. I am sending specimen copies to the hon. Member.

SMALL HOLDINGS (RENTS).

Mr. BROWN: 55.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received any representations as to the rents of smallholders;
and if he can now make any statement as to a proposed reduction of such rents?

Mr. BUXTON: Under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, the rents of small holdings provided by county councils and councils of county boroughs must be the best rent that can reasonably be obtained. It is, of course, obvious that varying conditions affecting agriculture may render revisions of such rents necessary from time to time, and the Ministry has agreed to the rents of small holdings being reduced temporarily or permanently as the circumstances required. Temporary abatements were made as long ago as Michaelmas, 1921, and since that date permanent reductions have been or are being made in 52 out of the 62 administrative counties in England and Wales, of which particulars were given in my reply to the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Hobhouse) on the L2th March last. In the other counties the question of revision of rents is being considered, and the Ministry will be prepared to approve any proposals put forward by councils for reasonable and proper reductions.

Mr. BROWN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Warwickshire rents vary from 38s. to 78s., and can some action be taken with regard to this matter?

Mr. BUXTON: In all cases the representative of the Ministry agrees with the county authorities and bases his rent upon reasonable ability to pay.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Is Lancashire one of the counties in which reductions have been agreed to?

Mr. BUXTON: If I remember aright, I rather think it falls in operation now.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (EMBANKMENT SUBWAY).

Mr. PENNY: 58.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the ever-increasing volume of vehicular traffic crossing and in the vicinity of Westminster Bridge, he can now see his way to facilitate approach on foot to the Houses of Parliament by reopening the Embankment subway entrance?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 20th February last to a similar ques-
tion by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), and of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. PENNY: I am well aware of that answer, but is this high official himself experiencing any inconvenience owing to this entrance not being reopened; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware there are a great many people who would like to use this gateway, and who would find it a great convenience in getting into the House?

Mr. JOWETT: My information is that it was very little used, but if there is a sufficient demand by Members to have this subway reopened, I will approach the Lord Great Chamberlain again on the subject. If it should be reopened, it will involve the cost of one or two extra police.

Mr. LANSBURY: How are we to let the right hon. Gentleman know that there is such a demand? Is he aware that a considerable number of us risk our lives every time we come to the House, as this is one of the very worst crossings in London?

Mr. JOWETT: I will approach the Lord Great Chamberlain again.

Oral Answers to Questions — TEMPORARY REFUGES.

Sir WILLIAM DAVIDSON: 60.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that no less than 15 temporary refuges have been erected in Hyde Park between Albert Gate and Victoria Gate, to the great disfigurement of the rural amenities of the park; by whose instructions have these temporary refuges been erected, and with what object; whether it is proposed to erect permanent refuges in due course in their place; and, if so, what will be the capital cost involved and the annual cost for lighting and maintenance?

Mr. JOWETT: The temporary refuges in question have been placed in position by my Department on the advice of the Commissioner of Police in consequence of the increase in the traffic in the park, and in order to protect pedestrians. The total number of temporary refuges to be erected is 23. Pending experience being gained as to the number and positions of the
permanent refuges required to replace the temporary refuges, an estimate of the total cost of the permanent refuges which must ultimately be erected cannot be given. The approximate cost per refuge would be from £120 to £130.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the great cost involved as well as the disfigurement of Hyde Park and the destruction of its amenities, would it not be very much better once again to exclude taxi-cabs from going through the park?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless he places policemen right inside the park, near the Marble Arch, in addition to having these refuges, a large number of people will be killed there?

Mr. BECKER: Could foghorns be attached to these land lighthouses?

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these temporary refuges are not used by nurses and children at all, and will he go to the park and see for himself how these refuges are avoided by young people, nurses and children, and are quite useless?

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that more of these refuges are put down, in order to provide for the safety of the people?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: If these refuges are so useful, why not make them permanent, instead of temporary?

Captain DONALD HOWARD: 61.
asked the First Commissioner of Works for what purpose the green lighthouses in the Mall opposite Buckingham Palace have been erected; why they are fitted with green lights that flicker by day and by night; and what was the cost of erecting these refuges?

Mr. JOWETT: The refuges in question, including the lights, are of an experimental character, and my Department is only bearing the cost of the bases, about £20. Permanent refuges of some sort will be necessary at or near these points.

Mr. JAMES HOPE: Would it not be more consistent with the traditions and aesthetics of the Government to erect red lights?

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Commission on Art, which was recently appointed by the Government, before any permanent disfigurement takes place either at Buckingham Palace or Hyde Park.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (ST. MARTIN'S-LE-GRAND SITE).

Mr. BOWERMAN: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General when the vacant site in St. Martin's-le-Grand was first offered for sale; whether any portion of the area has been sold; if so, the terms and conditions of purchase; and when building operations are likely to be commenced?

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. HARTSHORN): I have been asked to reply. The site was first publicly offered for sale in January, 1922, and the whole property has been sold. The amount of the purchase price will be published in the Finance Accounts in due course, but at present it is undesirable to disclose it. The terms and conditions of purchase are too lengthy to quote in a reply to a question, but, if my right hon. Friend desires information on any particular point, I shall be happy to arrange for a communication to be sent to him. On the concluding part of the question, I have no information.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Was there any competition in getting prices for this land?

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

PENSIONS TRIBUNALS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: 64.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that ex-service men are being discharged from their positions on pensions tribunals while non-ex-service men are being retained; and will he take steps to remedy this and to ensure that the services of ex-service men are the last to be dispensed with?

Mr. PARKINSON: I have been asked to reply. The Lord Chancellor, with whom rests the responsibility for these appointments, informs me that 132 out of the 139 male staff of the pension appeal tribunals are ex-service men, and that every endeavour is made to retain the services
of ex-service men when reductions to staff become necessary. I understand that the seven men who have not seen military service are employed upon duties which they are specially qualified to discharge, having regard either to their professional qualifications or to their experience of the work.

PARENTS' PENSIONS.

Mr. EGAN: 65.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will circulate for the information of the House a statement giving full information as to the changes which he has made in the scheme for the award of parents' pensions, showing the financial effects thereof?

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. MUIR): My hon. Friend is circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the changes recently introduced by my right hon. Friend in connection with the award of pension to parents It is estimated that these concessions will, during the first year of their operation, result in the distribution of an additional sum of £240,000 among this class of pensioner.

Following is the statement referred to:

Parents' Pensions.

(1) Transfer of pre-War dependence or flat-rate pension to surviving parent.—Prior to the 31st March, 1922, parents whose sons lost their lives as the result of the War were able to claim pension on three grounds, either (a) pre-War dependency, (b) pecuniary need and incapacity for self-support, or (c) where the deceased son was unmarried and under the age of 26 years at the time of his enlistment, a flat-rate pension of 5s. might be awarded. Since the 31st March, 1922, the only basis on which parents' pensions could be awarded has been (b), and in cases where a parent in receipt of a pension under (a) or (c) has died since that date, the transfer of such a pension to the surviving parent has not been admissible. It is felt that this practice has occasioned some hardship, and, in future, such pensions will be transferred to the surviving parent subject to the same conditions as those under which they were previously transferable.

(2) Need pensions.—The maximum need pension which can be awarded is 20s. a week, and in determining the
amount to be granted within this limit, the financial standard (or income limit) adopted by the Ministry has hitherto been 20s. for one parent and 30s. for two parents. In future these standards will be increased to 25s. and 35s. respectively. Roughly, this concession means that while the maximum need pension remains unaltered the large majority of parents in receipt of a need pension of less than the maximum of 20s. a week will obtain an appreciable increase of pension, amounting in some cases to as much as 5s. a week. Moreover, the minimum award will be 5s. a week, instead of 4s. 2d. Certain minor modifications are also being introduced into the scheme with a view to rendering it more elastic and adaptable to the varying circumstances of individual cases.

(3) Death of pensioner outside the seven years' time, limit.—Under the existing scheme, the parent whose son dies more than seven years after removal from duty or discharge from the Service is precluded from claiming pension. In view of the recent improvement in the position of widows of pensioners in similar circumstances, the position of the parent was anomalous, and it has, therefore, been decided to amend the Royal Warrants so as to enable claims for need pensions by parents of pensioners who have died beyond the seven years' limit to be considered on substantially the same lines as now obtain in regard to claims by widows of pensioners under Article 17 of the Royal Warrant.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. SANDEMAN: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the suffering caused to many by the inadequate and unsuitable accommodation provided for those who have to wait at many of the Employment Exchanges throughout the country; and what steps he proposes to take?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I am aware that some Employment Exchange premises are not suitable for present requirements, but, within the limits imposed by financial considerations, the accommodation is being
progressively improved. At all exchanges where applicants have to be dealt with in large numbers, arrangements are in force for attendance at fixed times in order to minimise periods of waiting. If applicants observe the attendance times specified, they do not have to wait for any lengthy period. Speaking generally, I think the best practicable steps are being taken to deal with the inevitable difficulties, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any specific case he has in mind, I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Sir CHARLES STARMER: Would it not ease matters if fewer attendances were called for each week? There are where men have to walk over 100 miles a month in order to sign on the unemployment register.

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall be very glad to look into any case of special hardship.

Sir C. STARMER: I have already tabled questions relating to cases of hardship, and there is no remedy from the present Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION (CLASS ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of cases in schools in England and Wales where two or more classes are taught in the same room?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. C. Trevelyan): I regret that the Board's records do not enable me to furnish this information.

Mr. GRENFELL: Cannot the Minister obtain the information by making inquiries?

Mr. TREVELYAN: We have a great deal of information on individual cases, but I mean that there is no statistical information, and it would take a long time to obtain.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S PRISONS (STOKERS).

Mr. LANSBURY: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in considering the hours of labour and remuneration paid to stokers employed in His Majesty's prisons, he will arrange that the maximum working-week shall not exceed 48 hours?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The men employed have been invited to express an opinion on the point. If, as a result, they continue to work for more than 48 hours a week, they will be allowed either extra pay or equivalent leave during the summer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (NATURALISATION).

Mr. LANSBURY: 70.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the delay in the issuing of naturalisation papers to persons applying to become naturalised citizens of this country; and whether, in view of the fact that in some cases there has been a delay, not only of months but of years, he will take the necessary steps to expedite these proceedings so that persons who have been resident in the country for many years may obtain their naturalisation papers without delay?

Mr. HENDERSON: Numerous applications are received, and I do not think there is any undue delay when the applicants are in a position to satisfy me that they may properly be given the privilege of British nationality. The time which must in many cases be allowed to elapse before a certificate can be granted is not a delay which can be eliminated or which can properly furnish cause for complaint.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department carrying out the policy outlined by the Labour party, at the Election, of imposing no restrictions on the immigration of aliens into this country?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That has nothing to do with naturalisation.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that there has been considerably less demand for naturalisation papers since the Government agreed to give doles to aliens?

Mr. McNEILL: On a point of Order. May I ask for an answer to my question?

Mr. HENDERSON: I did not answer because I thought it was not connected with the question on the paper.

Mr. SPEAKER: All the supplementary questions seem to be beyond the question.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is there any fixed number of years during which a person must be resident in the country before he can get naturalisation, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement is made that there are many people who have been waiting for 12 years?

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to put a question—

Mr. SPEAKER: Sir Fredric Wise.

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it your ruling, Sir, that because a number of questions have been put which are irrelevant, no Member is to have an opportunity of putting a relevant question?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not at all. But there must be some limit to Supplementary Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — OTTOMAN DEBT (COUNCIL OF ADMINISTRATION).

Sir F. WISE: 71.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Council of Administration of the Ottoman Debt, which was set up in 1881 by the Decree of Moharram, will cease to exist; if not, what revenues will be assigned to it; and what will be the amount it will administer?

Mr. GRAHAM: Under Article 56 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Council of the Administration of the Ottoman Public Debt shall no longer include delegates of the German, Austrian and Hungarian bondholders but in other respects its constitution is not altered. The rights of the Council in respect of the revenues in Turkey assigned to it by the Decree of Moharram are not affected by the Treaty. It will also be entitled to the security assigned to it under Article 48 of the Treaty of Lausanne by the States, other than Turkey, among which the Ottoman Public Debt is distributed. Until the Treaty has come into force, and effect has been given to its provisions, it is impossible to state what will be the amount of these assigned revenues.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

VOTE OF CENSURE.

Mr. BALDWIN: May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House if he has any statement to make?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I understood I was to be asked a question in regard to offering an opportunity for discussing a proposed Vote of Censure. I have no statement to make on business it no such question be put.

Mr. BALDWIN: Perhaps I was misinformed. But the right hon. Gentleman can tell us how far he proposes to go with the items on the Order Paper to-day?

Mr. CLYNES: As announced during my statement of last Thursday, it is proposed to try and complete the items up to and including the fourth on the Paper.

Mr. BALDWIN: How long would the Deputy-Leader of the House desire to keep the House to-night?

Mr. PRINGLE: There is no suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule.

Mr. CLYNES: A suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule would not be required to deal with the items in question. It is not our desire to keep the House very late—I should think in the region of midnight.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On this business, may I ask what is this Vote of Censure to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Who is tabling it, and on what grounds?

Mr. CLYNES: It is a matter on which I am awaiting information.

Mr. BALDWIN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will give us a day next week for the discussion of the McKenna Duties.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that a Vote of Censure?

Mr. CLYNES: In the ordinary course of things, the Government would have regarded the Second Reading of the Finance Bill as a fitting opportunity for discussing this question. An Amendment could have been put down, but, of course, we do not refuse such a request as the right hon. Gentleman now prefers, and we had in mind to allot Thursday next in this week. Should that not be convenient, I see no reason why an arrangement should not be made, through the usual channels, for some convenient day next week. In these circumstances, however, I would like to add that we think
that not more than one day for a discussion on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill should be asked for when that Bill is taken.

Sir K. WOOD: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether, as he promised the House on Thursday, he has made inquiries as to the Friendly Societies Bill, and when he will be able to take that Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: I think I should have had notice in regard to any other question on business.

Mr. H. MORRISON: Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's former answer, will he take into consideration that some of us would much prefer to vote on the McKenna Duties on their merits, and that if they are brought before the House in the form of a Vote of Censure it will be exceedingly difficult to get a decision of the House on the merits?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is very inconvenient for hon. Members in arranging their own business not to know what is being taken, and the nature of it. We understood that Thursday next was to be given to the Navy Votes, and I think we are entitled to know from the Leader of the Opposition what is this Vote of Censure.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not in order to put a question to the Leader of the Opposition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What is this Vote of Censure? I think even any private Member of this House is entitled to know what the business is to be, for his own convenience. May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has had any information about this Vote of Censure, and what are its terms?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what the Leader of the House referred to in the statement? The hon. Gentleman told me, in answer to a question, that the Lord Privy Seal was to give an answer in reference to the discussion of the McKenna Duties. May I ask what that is? We have not heard it yet.

Mr. CLYNES: My hon. and gallant Friend well knows that business is subject to modifications through arrangements made, and the Government must have regard to such a request when preferred
by the Leader of the Opposition in the usual way. As to the question of my hon. Friend, I understood that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had in mind the subject of the new Import Duties, and the statement I would make on the request preferred by the Loader of the Opposition.

Mr. BALDWIN: To prevent misunderstanding, I wish to tell my right hon. Friend that I cannot enter at this stage into any agreement as to time on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. That must be discussed through the usual channels.

Sir JOHN SIMON: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal, with reference to the statement he has made as to the possible Vote of Censure, what is the view of the Government as to the discussion of the McKenna Duties in the course of the ordinary discussion of the Budget Resolutions and the Second Reading of the Finance Bill? Will it be the case that, as a result of that Vote of Censure, a decision of the House will be arrived at, and that wilt mean there will be no discussion of the McKenna Duties except in that connection?

Mr. CLYNES: That is a matter for Mr. Speaker. I think it is a question of ruling, but my view is we ought not to have a repetition of the discussion of these questions, if the subject is fully debated on the Vote of Censure.

Mr. HOPE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, owing to technical reasons, this being a lapsing tax, it would be impossible to have an adequate discussion ad hoc on the McKenna Duties in the ordinary course of the Finance Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: I have already expressed my opinion on that point in making the announcement.

Mr. R. McNEILL: In view of the anxiety shown in regard to that matter below the Gangway, will this not supply an opportunity for "the oxen to draw the wain"?

Mr. PRINGLE: With regard to Thursday's business, can the Deputy-Leader of the House now say which of the Navy Votes will be taken on Thursday?

Mr. CLYNES: Clearly I cannot at the moment, as the Opposition have it in their power to decide which of the Navy Votes shall be taken on Thursday.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Royce to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill); Sir Cyril Cobb (in respect of the Local Government (Removal of Disqualification (No. 2) Bill); and Sir George McCrae to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill and of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Amendment Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following 10 Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the School Teachers (Superannuation) Bill): Mr. Acland, Mr. George Barker, Mr. Cowan, Sir Henry Craik, Mr. Morgan Jones, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Rawlinson, Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay, Mr. Trevelyan, and Mr. Edward Wood.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following 10 Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Local Government (Removal of Disqualification) (No. 2) Bill): Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. John Guest, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Lorimer, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Mr. Pilkington, Sir Philip Richardson, Mr. Sutton, Mr. Gilchrist Thompson, and Mr. Graham White.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Sir Thomas Inskip and Mr. Samuel Roberts; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Gervase Beckett and Major Sir Clive Morrison-Bell.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee: That the following Members representing Scottish constituencies are appointed to serve on the Standing Committee for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland and committed to a Standing Committee: Mr. William Adamson, Sir William Alexander, Mr. Asquith, the Duchess of Atholl, Sir John Baird, Sir Charles Barrie, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Sir George Berry, Mr. James Brown, Mr. Buchanan, Sir Samuel Chapman, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Climie, Sir Godfrey Collins, Mr. Dugald Cowan, Sir Henry Craik, the Earl of Dalkeith, Mr. Dickson, Major Dudgeon, Mr. Falconer, Mr. Ferguson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Duncan Graham, Mr. William Graham, Sir Robert Hamilton, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Charles Harvey, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Mr. Hogge, Sir Robert Home, Lieut.-General Sir Aylmer Hunter-Weston, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Kirkwood, Mr. Livingstone, Sir George McCrae, Sir Murdoch Macdonald, Mr. Robert MacDonald, Mr. Neil Maclean, Mr. Macpherson, Mr. Frederick Martin, Mr. William Martin, Mr. Maxton, Mr. Millar, Mr. Robert Mitchell, Mr. Morel, Mr. John Muir, Mr. Robert Murray, Mr. Nichol, Mr. Phillipps, Mr. Raffan, Mr. John Robertson, Mr. Rose, Mr. Scrymgeour, Mr. Shinwell, Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Mr. Spence, Mr. Stephen, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Sturrock, Mr. Sullivan, Sir William Sutherland, Mr. Frederick Thomson, Mr. William Watson, Mr. Weir, Mr. Welsh, Mr. West-wood, Mr. Wheatley, Major McKenzie Wood. Mr. Wright and Mr. Andrew Young.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following 10 Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Poor Law Emergency Provisions Continuance (Scotland) Bill and the Conveyancing (Scotland) Amendment Bill): Mr. Batey, Major Burnie, Mr. Hayes, Mr. William Henderson, Sir William Lane Mitchell, Mr. Pilkington, Mr. Atholl Robertson, Mr. Russell, Major Steel, and Sir William Mitchell-Thomson.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF EVICTION BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 13 & 14 Geo. 5, c. 32, s. 4, s.s. (1).)

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment on the Order Paper, standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division of Glasgow (Mr. Stephen)—in page 1, line 6, at beginning insert
(1) Paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of the Section which by Section four of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1923, is substituted for Section fire of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, shall have effect as respects pending as well as future proceedings as though after the words 'any rent lawfully due from the tenant has' there had been inserted the words 'through the wilful default of the tenant.'
Provided that the burden of proving that the default is not wilful shall rest upon the tenant—
is out of Order, as it is outside the scope of the Bill. It proposes to introduce in another form in this Bill a proposal which was rejected by the House in the preceding Bill.

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. In the Memorandum it is stated that one of the objects of this Bill is to prevent unreasonable evictions, and it is under that head that this Amendment has been put down. With regard to the part that has been already rejected, I would submit that the remaining part of this Bill was also rejected on the Second Reading of the previous Bill introduced by the Government. Consequently, I would submit that what applies to the rest of the Bill applies also to my Amendment. I think that if the remaining part of the Bill can be held to be in Order, seeing that the Bill introduced by the Government was rejected on Second Reading, this Amendment introduced by myself, as something coming within part of that Bill in a similar way, should also be allowed to stand.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. The circumstances are rather special. On one and the same day the House refused a Second Reading to a Bill, in the main,
on the ground of the first Clause contained in the Bill. Later in the same sitting, the House passed unanimously the Second Reading of a Bill dealing with the other matters that were common to the two Bills. I have to have regard not merely to the wording of the Title, but to the scope of the Bill, and to the general conditions on which the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill. Had the hon. Member's proposal contained in this Amendment been inserted in the Committee upstairs, I do not think the Chairman upstairs would have allowed it, but, supposing he had, and the Bill had come down here, I should have conceived that it would have been my duty to have refused further progress to the Bill on the lines which my predecessor laid down.

Mr. STEPHEN: Further, on this point of Order, I would like to point out, with regard to the part of this Bill that went to Committee, and received a Second Reading on the evening of the same day, that objection was taken on those benches to the Second Reading, and others of us, who also would have taken objection when it was taken after 11 o'clock, did not do so, because we had anticipated that it would be ruled out of order. We certainly feel very deeply about this most important part, which was no more rejected by the House than the other part, because the Second Reading of this Bill simply went through when a list of Bills was being read out. I would like to ask, with regard to this Prevention of Eviction Bill, which has been amended by the Standing Committee, if it is in order, seeing that the Second Reading of a Bill with Clauses that are contained in this Bill was rejected? The Amendment I have put down affects a great many poor people in the most intimate way, people, possibly, who have had to suffer more than any other on account of the condition of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and I would submit that this Amendment should be allowed to stand, along with the rest of the Bill. In the meantime, I would like to ask whether it is not possible for this Amendment really to stand part of the Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid not. Were I to admit this, it would be going quite contrary to the practice of the House and to the rulings of my predecessor on similar occasions. I have con-
sidered the matter most carefully this morning, and I cannot see my way to allow the Amendment to come within the scope of the Bill.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to ask your ruling whether, according to the rules of the House, the Prevention of Eviction Bill, as amended by the Standing Committee, is not in order, owing to the rejection, on Second Reading, of the Bill introduced by the Government, and whether, in allowing it to go through, there has not been the exercise of a certain amount of discretion or reading into the spirit of the rule something making it possible for this Bill to be taken? I would ask you if the rules do not really preclude this Bill from being taken owing to that previous decision of the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think not. I considered that question at the time, before the present Bill was called for Second Reading, and came clearly to the decision that it was competent for the Bill to go forward to a Second Reading. With regard to the changes made in Committee, I have also considered them, and I do not consider that the changes made in the drafting of the Bill, and the insertion of what is now Clause 2 of the Bill, call upon me to take any action with regard to the further proceedings of the Bill.

Mr. E. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "the landlord," and to insert instead thereof the words
a landlord who became landlord before the passing of this Act.
These words, or words to similar effect, were in the Bill as introduced by me, and they were deleted by a Government Amendment in Committee. That Amendment was carried—it is rather a curious case—by the united forces of the Government and hon. Members opposite against those who sit on these benches. I am sure that there was a very great deal of misunderstanding about the effect of the Amendment at that time. It is a very complicated Clause, because it is a question of legislation by reference, and anybody who has not studied the matter carefully is apt to go wrong. I want, therefore, to explain quite shortly exactly what is the effect of this Amend-
ment. The object is quite simple It is to prevent anybody after the passing of this Bill going and buying a house and then evicting the tenant without providing alternative accommodation. That is possible under the Clause as it now stands. It will not be possible if this Amendment be carried. The purpose of the Clause as it stands is to relieve landlords coming within that Clause from the obligation of providing alternative accommodation. The Clause is governed by the following words in last year's Act:
The existence of alternative acommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment
and then follow the words of this Bill. Any landlord who is governed by this Clause has not got to give alternative accommodation. He has to do something quite different. He has to satisfy the County Court that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, greater hardship would be caused by refusing than by allowing the eviction. Everybody knows that is quite a different matter. We have had the greater hardship Clause since last year, and there have been many cases where tenants have been evicted and great hardship has been caused. It must be so. The point is not whether the hardship on the tenant is great, but whether the hardship on the landlord is greater. After all, landlords do suffer hardships. We all admit that, and the object is to try and get fairness between landlords and tenants. I think it is agreed that there have been many cases where there has been hardship on the tenant on being evicted, and it was unanimously agreed in Committee that the form of words finally adopted and moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) did define this great hardship in the best way, and would hold the balance fairly as between landlord and tenant.
It has been suggested that this Amendment is unfair to landlords and will cause hardship to them. That is a complete misunderstanding, because any existing landlord is not in any way affected by the Amendment. On the other hand, if anybody has saved enough money to buy a house and wishes to do so, it is perfectly open to him, under the Clause as it now stands, to buy the house and to try to get the tenant evicted. Under the Amendment he could not get the tenant evicted.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) in Committee supported this Clause, because he said:—
Where alternative accommodation has got to be provided, it practically means total prohibition to the landlord. I say that it is going too tar, and it is taking sides too much to say that, because a man or a woman happens to be a landlord, they shall be deprived of the opportunity of putting an end to a condition of affairs which may be extremely injurious to their health and to the health of those who depend upon them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 15th April, 1924, Col. 16.]
We all agree with that as regards existing landlords, but when the right, hon. Gentleman made that speech I think he overlooked last year's Act although he himself was author of it, because there are excellent Clauses in that Act under which anybody who has saved money is given great facilities for buying and building a new house. There is a subsidy of £100 and the local authorities will advance up to 85 and sometimes 90 per cent. of the cost of the house. There is clearly no hardship in preventing somebody who has saved money—nobody wants to inflict hardship on the thrifty citizen; we all want to encourage him in every possible way—from buying an existing house and turning out the tenant, if, on the other hand he can go and get a house built, and for about five or six hundred pounds—that is the price in Manchester deducting the subsidy—he can get a good parlour house, and he has only to put down £100 in order to do so. There is no hardship in making it difficult to get existing houses having regard to last year's Act and the possibility of building new houses. There is a great advantage in doing that, because the one thing that we want is to get new houses built. Under the Bill which the Minister of Health is going to bring in, he is going to ask the Government and the local authorities to provide £1,000,000,000. Investors are not putting their money into houses, and the only way to relieve the country of some of that burden is to get people to build houses.
We ought, therefore, to encourage the owner-occupier in every possible way. He was encouraged last year by the subsidy and the loan which he can get, and I think we might, in a negative way, encourage him now by making it more difficult
for him to buy an existing house, while leaving it easy for him to buy and build a new house. That is encouraging everybody to do their bit to solve the problem by building new houses instead of obtaining possession of existing houses That is one of the most important aspects of this Amendment. I have tried to show that there cannot be any hardship on existing landlords because they are not affected by the Amendment. There cannot be any hardship on those who have saved money and want to buy houses, because they can build a new house and probably get better value for their money by doing so. There can be no possible injustice to anybody by passing this Amendment. On the other hand, it has two important effects. First of all, it will accelerate the building of houses and encourage the owner-occupier: and, secondly, it is the only way of giving to the great mass of tenants throughout the country absolute security against eviction without alternative accommodation being provided. For these reasons, I hope that the House will pass the Amendment.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think that those who were engaged in the Committee which sat upstairs, and who took part in the discussion, on that occasion must have expected that this Amendment would be brought forward by us on these benches this afternoon. The Bill has a peculiar history. It was adopted in the first instance, I think rather reluctantly, by the Government, and at the time the Prime Minister made a rather scornful reference to its provisions. The Bill went upstairs, and its purpose, at any rate, was to prevent evictions. The Attorney General, then representing the Labour Government on that Committee, introduced an Amendment which took the backbone out of the Bill. If the Bill passes in its present form, I suggest that it is hardly worth the labour of the House of Commons to vote it through. If it passes in the form that would be ensured upon this Amendment being carried, it will be worth something as a measure of protection to the tenants of this country.
I want to put before the House the position as clearly as I see it under the Act of 1923, which gathered up the earlier Acts of Parliament relating to Rent Restrictions. There was a general prohibition contained in Section 5, making it impos-
sible for any landlord or any owner to obtain possession of a house. Upon that prohibition there was introduced an exception in paragraph (d) of Section 5. Under that paragraph, a landlord can obtain possession of his house for himself, for anyone in his family, or for anyone in his employ upon ensuring alternative accommodation for the tenant. That is the general exception to the general prohibition. Under a further part of that same Section, there is another exception carved out of the exception itself. Under the law, as it has been standing, there has always been a distinction between the new landlord who bought after the date of the Act, and the landlord who owned before the date of the Act. That date has been insisted on in every Rent Restriction Measure that we have had. It is not some new proposal that has occurred to the ingenious mind of my hon. Friend the Member for "Withington (Mr. Simon). In the very first Measure that dealt with rent restrictions, this House approved of a distinction between those who had been landlords in earlier years and those who became landlords after the Act had been passed. That was in the first Act, I think, of 1917, and the date that was then inserted was 30th September, 1917. If a person became an owner before 30th September, 1917, then he could obtain the house whether or not there was alternative accommodation, simply upon showing that upon the balance of hardship he would suffer more than the tenant would suffer if the house was refused by the Judge.
Then we come to last year's Act, and I do not think that hon. Members sitting upon the opposite side of the House can object to a date being inserted in this Measure, because in that Act they themselves inserted a new date. They made the date, I think, June, 1922, and they said that there should be a difference between those who were owners before June, 1922, and those who became owners afterwards. We suggest a date in this Measure, and surely there ought to be no distinction between us upon this plea: A landlord who has bought a house before the date of the passing of the Act has got a greater claim than the landlord who comes along after the passing of the Act and deliberately buys a house in which there is already a tenant. If he came along before, if he bought his
house, say, six or twelve months ago, he was relying as he was entitled to rely upon the Acts of Parliament. Whether those Acts were fair or unfair he relied on them, and he put his money into his house knowing he could go into Court and make his application to the Judge. But if the man comes along now, after the passing of this Act and says: "Here is a house occupied by someone else, I am going to buy that house with the deliberate intention of turning him out as soon as I can," then upon that landlord you ought to put this definite obligation: Before you turn that tenant out you shall be obliged to secure for him or satisfy the Court that there is alternative accommodation for him. That is the reason for the distinction of date.
My hon. Friend opposite the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), who has been so prominently associated with this matter, smiles; though he may differ from us on other matters he will agree that there is a reason for the date, a reason that has been fully merited, a reason that has been in the minds of Members of the House of Commons in the three, in fact in the four, successive Parliaments which have dealt with this matter. That was the suggestion, that you should draw a distinction between the landlord who was a landlord before this Bill came into operation and the landlord who became one afterwards. It was a fair request, and I was utterly astonished in Committee that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General, representing the Government, should have turned it down. It seems to me that the only desire was to turn out part of our Bill, and substitute other words for ours. The matter was discussed, the vote was taken, and I am glad to think that every Liberal Member of the Committee voted in favour of the original form of this Bill, and, again, I was amazed that every Conservative present, and every Labour Member present, voted us down. That is the new Coalition! There has been nothing like it since the day that Herod and Pilate made friends.
Apart from that, I do ask the House now to consider what the position of the tenant will be, and what the position of the landlord, if the Bill passes into law in its present form. It will mean that you will deprive thousands of tenants in this
country of that security to which they are entitled, and for which they look to the House. If the Bill can pass in the form we first of all suggested, it will mean that the landlord who has owned the house for some years past, in going into the Court, will have to show that the hardship is actually on his part, but if he buys the house after the date of the passing of this Act, that hardship will not come into consideration. The real factor in the case will be the position of the tenant. The Judge will be obliged to satisfy himself that there is some place for that tenant to go to before he gives any order for eviction, and until he is satisfied on that point, he will not be able to have regard to the land lord's position. If the desire of this House be to prevent evictions, then we say the Bill ought to go through in its original form. If the Amendment that was supported by the Attorney-General upstairs is carried in the House to-day, it will mean that the Bill will be rendered very largely ineffective. I warn Members and supporters of the Government that just as there was—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I gave warnings last year upon the Bill supported by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and every one of those warnings has been justified in the course of recent months. The warning I give on this occasion—and I believe there are many hon. Members above the Gangway—I believe most of those above the Gangway are just as desirous as I am of preventing these evictions. The only difference may be as to the wording of this Bill. I repeat, we can prevent difficulties that may arise. But if the Bill passes in its amended form, tenants who think they are given protection will find that that is not secured to them, and the resentment will be all the greater because they will know that this House has been specially engaged upon a Bill to prevent evictions. When they find that the law practically remains unaltered as the result of a recent decision in the Courts, if this Bill is unaltered the law will remain practically the same as before the passing of it, it will not be well. It is because we want to secure some real measure of protection that I beg the Government to restore the Bill to its original form, and not insist upon the attitude which they took in Committee.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot,) who talked about me smiling, but I think the spectacle is one not for laughter, but rather for pathos. I dare say the House will have observed that the hon. Gentleman opposite has dealt very severely, though perhaps most appropriately, with this legislation which is to be the subject of their intensive propaganda in the constituencies during the next few weeks. But I remember the other day that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Master-man) said that he thought the subject of housing and eviction might be above all party politics. I was interested to read in the "Daily News" of Saturday that
Liberals have been remarkably successful in their efforts to secure remedial legislation on the subject of rents. While the Labour Bills have fared very badly—the Government Measure was rejected, and Mr. Ben Gardner's Bill is still held up in Standing Committee—Mr. E. D. Simon'a Evictions Bill will be on its way to the House of Lords next week, and Mr. Trevelyan. Thomson's Bill is likely to secure general assent.
What a pathetic thing it is to see Mr. E. D. Simon's Eviction; Bill progressing to the House of Lords when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin has informed us that the backbone has been knocked out of it! As a matter of fact the issue is a very small one. All that this Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite is seeking to do is to deal with cases of landlords who purchase their houses after the passage of this particular Bill. I was, therefore, rather surprised to hear the hon. Member who introduced this Amendment say it was going to bring some sort of relief to millions of tenants up and down the country, and was going to give them a sense of security. Whether he thinks that as a result of all this rent restriction landlords are going to purchase houses to-affect millions of tenants is a matter which I should ask him to consider again.
One of the reasons really by which you could do justice to landlords and tenants would be to avoid Amendments of this kind, and, if possible, to avoid rent restriction regulations. I am convinced that the more you seek unnecessarily to impose further conditions upon the purchase and sale of property, the more harm you are doing to the provision of new houses.
The hon. Gentleman opposite gave as his second reason that the actual acceptance of this Amendment by the Government would accelerate the building of houses. I cannot conceive for the moment why he thought that, because, if there is one thing that has prevented the building of new houses, at any rate, by private enterprise to-day, it is the fact that this House so constantly—perhaps of necessity!—is making further rent restriction legislation. Therefore I approach this gesture of my hon. Friend, not by any sort of criticism, but to see if possible whether we can avoid that. What it comes to is this: The hon. Gentleman wants in this Bill to impose a provision that if a purchaser buys a house to-day, he shall be prevented, not from evicting the tenant, but from going to the County Court Judge and asking that if the conditions are reasonable possession shall be given. I dare say hon. Members know that quite recently there has been a very important decision given in the Court of Appeal. The case was that of Shrimpton versus Rabbits—the latter a matter of interest, doubtless, to the Minister of Labour. This case laid it down that when any application was made by a landlord to endeavour to evict a tenant from premises the County Court Judge had to be satisfied of the circumstances, not only of the landlord, but of the tenant. Many hon. Members will remember that in the discussion in the last Parliament that side of this particular Act was emphasised by those of us who supported it, and to-day, whenever the landlord applies to the County Court to obtain possession of premises, the County Court Judge is fully entitled, and does, in fact, examine the circumstances both of the landlord and of the tenant. My hon. Friend is seeking this afternoon to get the House to approve of a principle which at any rate, would involve, if it was accepted, that the County Court Judge had no regard whatever to the question as to whether or not other accommodation is available.
As a matter of fact, it is the very thing that any County Court Judge to-day considers when a summons comes before him. There was a letter a few days ago in the "Times" from a very distinguished County Court Judge who served on the Committee to reconsider the Rent Restrictions Act, Sir Edward Bray. He says:
It would be very unfortunate and mischievous if at the present time such a mistaken impression got abroad.
On this particular matter—
The great majority of County Court Judges in these cases have always taken into consideration the position and circumstances of the tenant in accordance with the views expressed by the Divisional Court.
Therefore what my right hon. Friend is seeking to make out is that those of us who object to the Amendment which is proposed are in some way trying to put these hardships on the tenants of the country. I can assure him he is really much mistaken, because anyone who has had any experience of any of these cases knows, I suppose, that there has been no more sympathetic consideration of the circumstances of the tenants of the country than has been given by the County Court Judges under these Acts. The very first thing they always consider when an application like this is made is whether there is or is not alternative available accommodation. Any landlord who buys a house to-day after the passing of this Bill does so with his eyes open. He knows perfectly well that, if he goes to the court, the first thing the County Court Judge will say is, "When did you buy your house?" If he says "I bought it three weeks before I made my application to the Court," then my hon. Friend opposite, if he should chance to appear in that case, would find very short shrift indeed. Obviously, if an owner buys a house to-day with the idea which the hon. Member evidently has at the back of his mind, that by this means he is going to turn tenants into the street, he does not know the actual practice of the County Courts of this country, for there is no more possibility of a purchaser buying a house and getting possession in that way and turning a tenant out in two or three months' time than any possible thing you can conceive. The County Court Judge has to take into consideration not only alternative consideration, but the date when the owner bought the house.

Mr. MASTERMAN: In that case, why does the hon. Member object to a statutory limitation?

Sir K. WOOD: I say that the more you seek to impose these various matters upon the County Court Judge and not leave it to the general discretion of the Court, the more difficulties you will get into. Half the difficulty about rent restrictions and
half the litigation is caused because we have tried to impose so many directions and regulations on the County Court Judges. I have often thought that perhaps the easiest way to deal with rent restrictions would have been to pass a single clause Bill and leave it to the County Court Judges to do what was right and equitable in these cases. If that had been done I do not think we should have been in the difficult position in which we find ourselves to-day. This Amendment is really unnecessary. If you put in a definite stipulation that alternative accommodation must be found, I agree that you would be, in effect, putting in a provision which would render it very difficult. If there is one thing we ought to insist upon in legislation of this kind it is to hold the balance as fairly as we can between landlord and tenant. I do not think hon. Members opposite will get much advantage from an electoral point of view from any rent restriction legislation. I am in favour of doing justice both to the landlord and the tenant, and I shall certainly vote against my hon. Friend's Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I am sorry the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) should have elevated this Amendment to the position of calling it the backbone of the Bill. If this be the backbone I do not think very much of it. I believe the Bill as it stands is a far more considerable achievement than the hon. Member for Bodmin seems to believe. I do not deny that there is some point in the Amendment, but I cannot accept the view that it is the centre of the present Bill. All that the Amendment proposes to do is really to draw a dividing line between landlords who possessed their houses before the passing of this Bill and landlords who became owners subsequently. In the latter case, if they are seeking possession, they must prove alternative accommodation, no question of hardship being allowed to enter into the consideration of the question.
I assume that the object of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) in introducing this Amendment was to ensure that tenants shall not in future be at the mercy of landlords who may be disposed to turn
them out of their homes. My view is that the Bill, as drafted, would in practice give just that protection, because, under the Clause as it stands now, every landlord, including those who became landlords after the passing of the Bill, will have to prove greater hardship or alternative accommodation for their tenants before they can get possession of the houses, and in all cases the Court is requited to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case.
It is true that one of the circumstances of the case which would be quite relevant would be the time at which the new landlord bought the house. Therefore I think the Bill as it stands really covers the point. If, however, there should be a very strong feeling on the part of the tenants that they might be subject to eviction under the Bill as it stands at present, we have every desire to meet that difficulty. What I understand the promoters of this Bill have in mind, and what, indeed, their arguments have been directed to, is the case of the landlord who, after the passing of this Bill, comes into the market to purchase a house. The Amendment, as drafted, refers to a landlord who became a landlord after the passing of the Bill. Persons may become landlords after the passing of the Bill, not by purchase but by succession.
Let me take a case which was in our minds before, and which may give rise to real hardship. Suppose a landlord dies after the passing of the Bill and he is succeeded by his widow. Under the new circumstances she may be unable to continue in possession of the house previously rented by her husband, and, therefore, she is driven to occupy the house of which she has become the landlord. If this Amendment were adopted, she would be unable to do that unless she obtained alternative accommodation for the existing tenant, and however great her own hardship might be, and it might be greater even than that of the tenant—

Mr. FOOT: Yes, financially.

Mr. GREENWOOD: No; I mean general hardship. In these circumstances, however hard the case, unless she was in a position to prove alternative accommodation, she could get no relief under this Amendment. There is one small point which would make the Amend-
ment do something different from what is intended. The term "passing of this Act" would mean, if this Amendment were adopted, the passing of the Act of 1920, because the Clause as it stands is to be read as part of Section 5 of the Act of 1920, and that would have to be altered.

Sir J. SIMON: Has the hon. Gentleman really been advised that if in an Act of Parliament you refer to the "passing of this Act" the fact that the Act is to be read with another Act means that it refers to the passing of another Act? Is that the advice given by the Law Officers of the Crown?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was under the impression that the Clause would read as part of the Act.

Sir J. SIMON: Is that the view of the Attorney-General?

Mr. GREENWOOD: At any rate that is quite a minor point.

Sir J. SIMON: I did not notice the Attorney-General correcting the hon. Member.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): My right hon. Friend did not notice me correcting my hon. Friend because he did not look.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We desire to remove any misapprehension and any uncertainty there may be amongst tenants because at some time their houses may be bought, and they may lose their occupation of them. Perhaps it will give greater comfort and confidence if we accept this Amendment in substance, making it clear that we are only dealing with landlords who become landlords by purchase. Will the hon. Member who moved this Amendment agree that the words to be inserted shall read "not being a landlord who has purchased a dwelling house after the fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-four"? Perhaps that would meet with the general approval of the House, and I think hon. Members opposite might accept the Amendment in its amended form.

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: I suppose this is the result of the new concordat, but it would save a good deal of trouble if the Government, when they arrived at a concordat, stuck to it. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member
for Withington (Mr. E. Simon) was struck out of the Bill in Committee on the motion of the Government, and we, childlike, believed that when the Government in Standing Committee moved to strike words out they mean what they say. Relying upon that, and the fact that the Government have every knowledge of the needs of the tenants, and the effect these words would have on the position of the landlords, we believed that the Government were well advised, and, desiring to help the Government, we supported them, and these words were struck out. Now, when hon. Gentlemen below the Gang way desire that they shall be put in again, and some kind of concordat has apparently been arrived at, the Government come along and say, "We are prepared to ask our Friends behind us to vote in the opposite direction to that in which they voted in Committee upstairs."
May I, apart altogether from the curious position between those two parties, put to the House the real effect? Under the Bill as it is drawn, it is admitted that there may be hardship on a landlord greater than that which is on the tenant. That is the substance of this particular Clause. Otherwise, the Bill has no meaning at all. According to this Clause, where a dwelling house is required by the landlord, no matter when he became the landlord, it is admitted that there are occasions when the hardship of depriving him of the house is greater than the hardship of turning the tenant out. There may be many reasons why that may be the case. The landlord himself may have been an evicted tenant, and he may see no other means of getting a house than by buying it. Or his circumstances, after having bought the house, may change. It must be remembered that this Bill may run on for years. Let us assume that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), in all good faith, buys a house for the purpose of investment, and that, after the passing of this Act, his position changes, and it becomes essential for him to go and live in that house. It is quite clear that the County Court Judge has to decide, but it is surely as possible that the hardship may be greater on the new landlord than on the tenant. The hardship may just as possibly be greater on a landlord who has purchased after the passing of this Act than on a landlord who has purchased immediately before the passing of the
Act. In the Amendment as it has been moved, or as the Parliamentary Secretary suggests it shall be moved, it all depends, not upon whether there is hardship on the landlord or not, but upon whether the landlord buys the house on the 4th May, 1924, or whether he buys it on the 6th May, 1924. That is a perfectly ridiculous position.

Mr. MASTERMAN: It is perfectly sound.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the right hon. Gentleman says that that is a sound position, will he address to the House an argument to show that, while it is fair to allow a landlord, who bought a house on the 4th May, 1924, to go to the County Court Judge, and say that the hardship is greater on himself than on the tenant, it is not equally hard if he bought it on the 6th May, 1924?

Mr. PRINGLE: The same argument could be adopted in regard to every such date laid down in any Act.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme to justify the difference in hardship between the man who buys on the 4th May and the man who buys on the 6th. After all, the whole thing is subject to the decision of the County Court Judge. The County Court Judge has to be convinced, and he would look with very grave suspicion, undoubtedly, on the man who had bought a house after the passing of this Act, and was trying to turn a tenant out. He would look very carefully to see whether there was not less hardship in turning him out than in keeping him in, and I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has to prove that he will not have confidence in the decision of the County Court Judge as to whether there is or is not greater hardship in preventing the landlord from getting possession of his house. I submit that the Government have in this matter really spoilt the Clause. The Clause trusts the County Court Judge, and it gives him complete discretion to decide as to whether there is greater hardship on the one side or on the other. Now you are taking out some particular section of landlords, and saying, "I will remove that landlord from the jurisdiction of the County Court Judge, even though the hardship may be greater on the land-
lord who has bought his house on the 6th May"—and ex hypothesi it is quite possible that it may be—"and I will not give him a chance to go to the County Court Judge and submit his case to him as to whether the hardship is not greater upon him than upon the tenant."

Mr. MASTERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has addressed himself personally to me—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Because you interrupted.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I have not the slightest complaint to make—and has illustrated his argument from what might possibly happen in my own private life. I confess that while I listened to his speech with the greatest pleasure, I cannot conceive what he means by the challenge he has thrown out. He seems to think there is no difference at all between a landlord who has purchased his house under the conditions laid down before the passing of an Act of Parliament, and the landlord who has purchased his house under conditions which are laid down in an Act of Parliament. He says to me what a hardship it would be to me if my circumstances changed, and if I purchased a house in order to get that house myself and turned the tenant out into the street on the claim, not that there is any alternative accommodation for the tenant, but that it is a greater hardship for me than for him. That may be the case, and the landlord may be justified if he has purchased the house with that intention before Parliament has told him that he cannot turn the tenant out; but, immediately Parliament has said that he cannot turn the tenant out without providing alternative accommodation, he would, if he purchases the house in order to turn out the tenant, realise that he is going against the Act of Parliament and purchases at his own risk, and he has to convince the County Court Judge that he is entitled to turn out the tenant, who has done no harm to anyone, but who, ex hypothesi, is paying his rent. The tenant is now subject to a predatory or peripatetic landlord—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—if those terms are offensive I will say a prospective landlord—and he suddenly, as though a bolt had come from the blue, finds himself pitched into the street, because the landlord has bought the house after the passing of this Act. The very conditions, through the passing
of the Act, become different both for the landlord and for the tenant, and, therefore, we claim that, without creating any hardship at all to any existing landlord, we are protecting certainly many hundreds, and probably thousands, from the possibility of being turned out, and, as has been said, we are giving security to millions of tenants who would not otherwise have that security. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] Let me take the example of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) who led the Opposition to our proposal in the Committee. I make no criticism about his suggestion that our statements were so confused and that we were so lacking in leadership from the Attorney-General. I can quite understand, that if we were seeking in desperation for leadership, the hon. Member for West Woolwich would always be willing to provide little trifles of that sort, and we all know, from his questions in the House and from his attitude in the Committee, that, he has only two great desires—the one to give justice to the tenants of this country, and the other not to let political considerations interfere in the least degree with the work of benefiting people, especially in his own constituency. He asserted recently that the Government were evicting, or trying to evict, tenants in Woolwich, who were only being preserved by the County Court Judge. I do not want to revive that question, but he stated that there were only seven of them.

Sir K. WOOD: No. I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have discovered that the first Commissioner of Works dealt three weeks previously with another six cases.

Mr. MASTERMAN: So the number has gone up to 13. Whatever the number may be, that was not the hon. Member's argument. He said—I think he will not object to my paraphrase of his statements—he said, almost in tears—I am not sure whether he did not produce a black-bordered pocket handkerchief—"It is not merely these unfortunate 13 people that I am thinking of; but the very fact that the Government is ejecting tenants makes all the 18,000 people in my constituency afraid that they will be ejected as well, and, therefore, although I know the County Court Judges are so good that they will not let the Government do their
foul work, yet what I want to do is to get security. All my 18,000 constituents will get security, and they will say 'We do not care about evictions, but still, this is the gentleman who got us security.'" That is, indeed, "sob-stuff." Let me turn to the argument on the other side. The hon. Member states that the County Court Judges will always give a tenant this right which we are asking shall be put in the Statute. We say that, even if that be true, this is worth putting in, because we do three things. First of all, we protect the few people who are in the condition which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) attributes to me—people who, their circumstances having changed, will buy houses over the heads of the tenants and try to throw them into the street—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not do that. He might, however, buy a house to-day for investment, and his circumstances might subsequently change. I did not say that he would buy a house with a view to turning the tenant out.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. MASTERMAN: If, after the passing of this Act, or after the 5th May, I buy a house, I cannot turn the tenant into the street, even if a County Court Judge is prepared to let me do so, but on the whole, though I do not want to indulge in sob-stuff, I would prefer, rather than buy a house with a view to turning the tenant out, to emigrate abroad. First of all, therefore, we protect, perhaps, a few hundreds of tenants who may be subject to the desire of landlords to buy houses over their heads and turn them out. Then we protect a good many other thousands from litigation. I can quite understand the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) saying in Committee, "A plague on all your lawyers; they are all vagabonds and rogues." I am sorry the hon. Member is not at the moment in his place. I do not agree with everything that he says, but I did agree with him when he said, "Our lawyers are as bad as any other lawyers." I say, therefore, that by this Amendment we first of all protect some hundreds of people who might be ejected—and there are very variable County Court precedents and County Court judgments on this question; the County Court Judges are not
in a condition in which they desire no guidance from this House on the question of hardship. They are in a position in which they do desire such guidance, and there is not one of the tenants' protection societies that have been engaged in the work of protecting tenants in County Courts that is not eager that this provision should be restored to the Bill. We protect several thousands of people from litigation. They might win in the litigation, but they do not want to have to go into it, whatever lawyers of whatever party might benefit from it. We protect these people from the fear of that litigation. If this Amendment be carried, we protect them from being challenged as long as they pay their rent, and it will not be possible for any decent tenants to be turned into the street by their houses being bought over their heads unless alternative accommodation is found for them. I feel sure that if the Minister of Health had been in charge of the Bill instead of the Attorney-General, this Amendment, instead of being rejected by 42 votes to 10, would have been accepted in the name of the Government, and would have been carried, as I am glad to say, apart from any party question, it is going to be carried this afternoon. Therefore, I express our hearty gratitude to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for having in substance—I am not sure that there are not some technical questions which may be challenged—accepted this Amendment, which will restore our Bill to its original condition; and I congratulate him on being able to regard as negligible any statement of the kind that is more familiar on the other side of the House, as to there being any secret concord at or any arrangement of any kind whatever. There has been no arrangement of any sort. We are prepared to advocate this proposal and to press it to a Division. If we were merely thinking of party advantage, we should rather advocate that the Amendment should be resisted, and, therefore, it is not from a party point of view that we are advocating it, but because we believe it to be vital that we should break up this most unholy alliance. We accept the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, and we congratulate him on having seen the real point at issue.
It might have been seen in Committee, and might have been met there, as it was desired that it should be met on every side of this House.

Mr. SPEAKER: May I ask the House to keep a little closer to the substance of the Bill? The discussion is really ranging rather wide.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I shall endeavour, Sir, to follow your ruling, although it will make it rather difficult for me to answer the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman). He considers that my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) is indulging in what he called "sob-stuff," of a very acute kind, when he talks about the tenants at Woolwich. But when the right hon. Gentleman himself talks about tenants' protection societies, and waves his hands and talks about tenants being thrown into the street, that is not "sob stuff," but merely justice. I think we can, really, leave the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends to get what capital they can out of this Amendment, but I wish to appeal to the House to consider very carefully whether the proposed compromise is in the interest either of landlords or of tenants. It has one perfectly extraordinary effect—an effect, of course, which has not been considered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme, or by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). The hon. Member for Bodmin thinks that all his predictions about the Rent Restrictions Acts have been fully fulfilled, but that is a conviction which rests upon convenient forgetfulness of the things he has said which have not been fulfilled, and his power of catching up every single point which might possibly contribute towards showing that some of the things he said have been fulfilled. But those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have never considered the actual effect of this Amendment.
May I point out that none of the three hon. Members who have spoken from below the Gangway have produced a single argument in favour of the Amendment at all? They have talked about protecting tenants, but if you want to protect the tenants, nothing is needed beyond a one-Clause Bill saying that no tenants shall be turned out. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, and hon. Members opposite would get credit on the Clyde for that, but we are dealing with a specific Amendment which has been proposed, and the hon. Members who proposed it have not endeavoured to justify its operation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) asked what is the justice of making a distinction between a landlord who buys a house before a certain date and the landlord who buys a house after that date? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme says there is the justification that we have passed a Bill in the meantime, but the question is whether the Bill that is passed is a just or an unjust Bill. Is the dividing line you are drawing just or unjust? It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that everything included in an Act of Parliament must be just. We all know that that is not the case.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I had no idea of ever making so absurd a statement.

Lord E. PERCY: I agree. I am only pointing out that the hon. Members responsible for this Amendment have failed to justify, or even to begin to justify, it. Let us see what its effect really is. Suppose that I am a landlord, and bought a house on the 1st January last. Suppose that I evict the tenant of that house, that is to say, I tell him that I want the house for my own occupation, and am going to take him into the County Court to ask for possession. The County Court, after carefully hearing the case, comes to the conclusion that I am entitled to possession—comes to the conclusion, possibly, that the tenant will be able to secure a new house with comparative ease, and that he has sufficient means to enable him to do so. Suppose that I am still the landlord, but have not yet got possession of the house. I have an order against the tenant under which he must clear out of the house on, say, the 10th May. The tenant, finding that he must get other accommodation, goes out and buys a house. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme and the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) come down and say, "No, your tenant may turn you out because he became the landlord before a certain entirely arbitrary date, on which the House of Commons happened to pass this Bill." But you who
have been turned out and have got alternative accommodation by buying a house, must not get possession. If you once allow landlords to turn tenants out because they require possession for themselves you can do that with, I believe, complete justice if you give discretion to the County Court, provided you do not hinder the man who is turned out from getting alternative accommodation for himself. But this is an anti-tenant's Amendment. Hon. Members opposite, half of whose talk is utterly baseless, talk about these hundreds of thousands of tenants who are already exposed to the danger of eviction because the landlord wants the house for his own possession. All the thousands of tenants about whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme waxes so eloquent are to be prevented by this Amendment from getting any sort of alternative accommodation if they are turned out, if that alternative accommodation involves the purchase of a house. It reduces the whole operation of the Act as it will stand amended by this Bill to absolute ridicule.

Mr. FOOT: If the insertion of a date reduces the Bill to ridicule why was it that the insertion of a date in the last Bill, to which the Noble Lord was a party, did not make that Bill ridiculous?

Lord E. PERCY: The dates fixed in every Bill previous to the Bill of 1923 were based upon this fact, that each successive Rent Restrictions Act was a temporary Act, that it was lapsing by a certain date, and therefore when renewed it was considered that consideration should be given to the landlord who had bought the House in the confident expectation that the Act was going to lapse. That was the justification for every date fixed in, for instance, the 1922 Act, which fixed three different dates on that basis to deal with different Rent Restrictions Acts. Last year we fixed a date which was more generous to the tenant than that fixed in previous Acts. We fixed a date a whole year before the lapsing of the 1920 Act. We did that in July, 1922. The date was justified by the fact that the Act was lapsing in 1923, and it was intended to deal with landlords who had bought in the confident expectation of that Act lapsing. But we also provided that any landlord who purchased after that date should get the house if he could prove greater hardship, and this was the
effect of the 1923 Act which made an advance on previous Acts. [Interruption.] That, I quite grant the hon. Member, is the reason this Bill is opposed by hon. Members like himself who are entirely ignorant of the Rent Restrictions Acts.

Mr. FOOT: Your leader supported it.

Lord E. PERCY: And I supported it because I think it was harmless. But this Bill as it stands now would do the same thing in practice that we did in the Act of last year. It would carry on a system under which a landlord buying after June, 1922, can get possession if he can prove greater hardship. Therefore you will not run the risk of turning a tenant out on the ground on which the tenant himself cannot if necessary get alternative accommodation. Though that was the reason for the dates in previous Acts there is no such reason for this date. This date, 5th May, bears no relation to the termination of the 1923 Act or of any other Act. No landlord has bought by that date in the confident expectation of the lapsing of the Rent Restrictions Act. I will withdraw what I said of the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon) in one respect. He produced one argument. He said it would encourage landlords to build new houses rather than buy existing houses. Pro tanto, I think the Bill will do that, and that is why I am quite ready to support it. But the Amendment will not add anything to that. Does not the hon. Member see that Part I of the 1923 Act is lapsing as it stands at present in July, 1925? The landlord can buy a house, say, next month. If the Amendment is passed he will not be able to evict the tenant. If he waits a year the Act will lapse.

Mr. E. SIMON: indicated dissent.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member intends to prolong the Act beyond July, 1925. But does he not see that if he puts the date in here he will have to go on in any future extension of the Rent Restrictions Act, putting another date in and making a difference for landlords who bought in the confident expectation of the Act lapsing in July, 1925? That is the whole argument of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). You must keep the fixed date. What is the fixed date under the provisions of the Act? The
date on which the previous Act was, it was confidently expected, going to lapse. Therefore a landlord who is going to buy quite happily in June, because he will look forward to getting into his house in July, is not going to get occupation much before next summer. Can he have as confident expectation of that as he can have of the lapsing of the Rent Restrictions Act? Hon. Members opposite have not thought out a single one of the effects of this Amendment. May I quote the words of a famous President of the United States:
We are confronted by a condition and not by a theory.
They have got a theory of how rent restriction can be conducted, but none of their proposals are directed in any way to the condition that they actually have to meet. I would really ask the House to think before they insert an Amendment, the only effect of which must be to create great hardship on certain classes of tenants. I would ask the House to pause before doing it and not to put that in merely to connect hon. Members above and below the Gangway again in the Siamese twin condition in which they once so happily were.

Mr. VIANT: I have listened very attentively to the arguments from the other side in opposition to the insertion of a date. I am on Standing Committee C, and I want to express my appreciation, having had an opportunity of reading this Amendment calmly and coolly, of the Government being prepared to insert a date. From my own experience in my constituency, where tenants who are liable to be evicted continually wait on my doorstep every morning before I leave for this House, I am convinced that definite guidance to the County Court Judges, such as this will give them, will be even appreciated by them.

Lord E. PERCY: Does not the hon. Member realise that nothing in this Amendment is going to affect in any way any of the tenants who now wait on his doorstep?

Mr. VIANT: If I understand procedure, this House, generally speaking, enacts legislation with a view to removing certain specific difficulties or hardships, or endeavours to confer certain rights upon certain people. Circumstances have arisen, even as the result of previous Rent
Restrictions Acts, which have of necessity from my point of view compelled the insertion in this Bill of a specific date. Evictions will not be possible after the passing of this Bill, which will prevent the purchasers of houses after this Bill obtaining possession of the premises purchased. Those who have purchased prior to the passing of the Bill will only be affected to this extent, that they will have to prove in the County Court that the hardship for them as purchasers will be greater than the hardship imposed upon the tenants if they are evicted.

Lord E. PERCY: They have to prove that already.

Mr. VIANT: I agree, but experience has taught some of us, at least, that the proving of hardship is not sufficient. The desire, generally speaking, if I understand the feeling aright, is that evictions should cease, and the insertion of a specific date will enable us for the time being to hold up such evictions. I feel that the County Court Judges themselves will appreciate that fact. They are confronted with circumstances to-day which they do not appreciate by virtue of the fact that they invariably have to go beyond even their own humanitarian feelings because of the inadequacy of the existing Acts. Cases innumerable are waiting on my doorstep morning after morning, and I am persuaded that the insertion of this date will be appreciated by thousands of tenants, and even by the County Court itself. There is no excuse for the Opposition trying to make points in respect of endeavouring to avoid the insertion of this date. Nearly every Act of Parliament that is passed lays down a specific date when it shall come into operation. Seldom does the House consider the effect that it is going to have upon people before the passing of the Act. We legislate invariably for the future. It is seldom that this House even passes retrospective legislation. I hope the House will see the wisdom of accepting the proposal of the Government.

Sir J. SIMON: There seems to be something about the subject of rent restriction which compels those who discuss it constantly to become involved in some very elaborate detail, because I thought when the hon. Member for Withington (Mr. E. Simon) moved his Amendment he made entirely plain what the effect of it would
be, and I thought the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health also made entirely plain that the Government were in substance prepared to accept that Amendment, as I imagine the hon. Member for Withington is very content that they should. But the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), whom we have been accustomed to regard as a great expert on the subject, has confused me completely, and that is the more remarkable because his contributions to this subject are not limited to speeches made in this House. Of course he has had great experience administratively on the subject and he was one of the authors and signatories of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the increase of Rent and Mortgage Restrictions Act, 1920. One of the matters which that Report discussed was the circumstances in which it would be desirable to insist upon the provision of alternative accommodation before a landlord could turn a tenant out. I certainly understood the Noble Lord to say it was quite absurd in his view to say that whatever the provisions might be they ought not to be provisions which would inure to the advantage of persons who became landlords after the passing of the Act. Yet when I look at page 15 of the Report of the Departmental Committee which the Noble Lord signed, I read this passage. He is dealing with the case of an owner requiring possession for occupation as the law was in 1920. He says:
At present, before he can obtain possession, he must obtain alternative accommodation for the tenant unless he became the landlord before the date specified in the Act. We consider that this condition should be withdrawn in all cases where the house is required for occupation by the owner or his children, but in view of the possibility of abuse we think this concession should apply only to those who have already become owners.
If I understand this, it is the Noble Lord who insists that you ought to have proposals which will secure that people who become owners after the Act are not put in the same position.

Lord E. PERCY: That was our contention on the Committee. It very commonly happens in drafting a report that one comes up against certain considerations. We came up against the consideration which I have pointed out, that, if you draw a hard-and-fast line like
that, you will discriminate against the eviction of a tenant who will not be able to secure alternative accommodation, and that is the point which we put into our Bill.

Sir J. SIMON: I quite agree. It is never too late to mend, or, indeed, to change your opinion, and it is never too late for the House on Report to reverse the decision arrived at on Standing Committee on the advice of the present Attorney-General, and with the support of all the Members of the Labour and Conservative parties. But this is a very strange doctrine Apparently, on mature reflection, the Noble Lord has come to the conclusion that in this respect the Report of the Committee was wrong, because he feels that an opportunity ought to be given to an evicted tenant to realise his securities and buy a house, although it is occupied by someone else, and enter into possession. That is the case. A man who is not able to pay his rent, whose difficulties are such that he really can find no means at all of maintaining himself where he is, is to be a person who is to buy a house, and having bought it he is to evict someone else. Then what, I should like to know, is to happen to evicted tenant number two. Apparently this principle of puss in the corner can go on indefinitely, and the Noble Lord's mature reflection on the subject leads him to the conclusion that the Report which he signed, and, for all I know, took a share in drawing up, which insisted on the very distinction which this Amendment would now secure, was after all an undesirable change, because you could not in that event have an endless chain of evicted tenants each engaged in buying a house and evicting someone else. I begin to understand that a close and continuous study of the subject produces very strange results.

Lord E. PERCY: I am not, and no one is, dealing with the eviction of tenants who cannot pay their rent.

Sir J. SIMON: I know that. If my phrase was inaccurate, the Noble Lord was right in correcting me, but it is not the point I was making. The other thing which astonishes me a good deal is to find how quickly the atmosphere of the House of Commons on the Report stage
changes the views of people who have been engaged in Standing Committee C. I have made it my business, as I did not serve on that Standing Committee, to study the OFFICIAL RKPOUT of what occurred. The Committee met and had the advantage of the assistance of the Attorney-General, who lost no time in clearing up the view of the Prime Minister that the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Withington were no good and must at once be torn up. Thereupon, the Attorney-General produced his alteration. Half the Report of the proceedings of the Committee consist of a Debate in which my hon Friend the Member for Withington and my hon. Friend the Member tor Bodmin (Mr. Foot) and others were pointing out that if the Government insisted on the suggestion of the Attorney-General in making the change which he so hastily proposed in the Bill, they would produce the very evil which the Government and the hon. Members behind the Government now appreciate. They now realise that, as a matter of fact, that evil must be guarded against by restoring the Bill, in substance, to its original form Let me read two or three passages from the Report of the Committee. The hon. Member for Withington said, with regard to the Attorney-General's proposal.
If the Amendment be accepted, and if a landlord chooses to buy a house, he can then proceed to get an order for eviction against the tenant if he can prove greater hardship to himself by having the order refused than to the tenant by having it granted and having the tenant ejected.
That was the whole point, and my hon. Friend laid it down with the greatest clearness, within a few minutes after the Attorney-General had produced the Government's Amendment. The hon. Member for Bodmin pointed out that there would be no distinction drawn at the date of the passing of the Bill according to the Government's Amendment, and he went on to say:
A man who buys a house next month should know that before he can turn his tenant out he must satisfy the Court that there is alternative accommodation available for the tenant.
The hon. Member who has just spoken seems to agree that that was perfectly good sense. The hon. Member for Bodmin was pointing out what was perfectly true. A speech was made by the late Solicitor-General, the hon. and
learned Member for Central Bristol (Sir Thomas Inskip) in which he put the point with the greatest clearness. He said that the question was whether the Attorney-General's Amendment was better than the Bill as it stood. He argued that it was really better to leave all these things to the discretion of the County Court Judges. The Attorney-General did not take the smallest part in the subsequent Debate. He did not make the smallest attempt to meet the criticism offered by my hon. Friends, but, before the Committee voted, the hon. Member for Withington said:
If the Government Amendment be passed, any landlord after this date who buys a house, and can prove that it is a greater hardship upon him not to get possession of the house than it would be to the tenant to be ejected can get the tenant out,

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: My right hon. and learned Friend has unwittingly done the Attorney-General an injustice, because the Attorney-General, according to the OFFICIAL REPOKT, addressed four lines to the Committee, in which he said that the date had no importance at all.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg the Attorney-General's pardon. He said that they attached no importance to it, because it did not matter a bit. Do the supporters of the Government really think that it makes no difference whether you secure or whether you do not secure that after this Bill is passed, and with the knowledge of this Bill, a man shall not be able to say, "That is a nice looking house. I should like to live in that house. I have the money with which to buy it. I will buy the house, and go to the Court and show that my hardship is greater than that of the tenant, and, therefore, the tenant must go out, even if there is no alternative accommodation for him." That was the result of what was done, and deliberately done, in the Standing Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: The County Court Judge would never make such an Order.

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member is quite entitled to say that he does not think it matters.

Sir K. WOOD: I said that no County Court Judge would ever make such an order in the case of a man who has bought a house in those circumstances.

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member is entitled to say that he does not think it matters, but I am addressing myself to the members of the Labour party who support the Government. Is it not entirely clear to them that the Committee upstairs was misled, no doubt unwittingly, by the Attorney-General, because it is really no use saying in the House of Commons that you are going to put the Bill right when it is nothing more than restoring the original proposal of the hon Member for Withington. You had all this elaborate parade before the Standing Committee, in the course of which the Bill was altered, and now it has to be put back into substantially the condition it was in before.

Mr. G. OLIVER: Does the right hon. I and learned Gentleman object to the Amendment now proposed by the Government?

Sir J. SIMON: No, but it is just as well to bear in mind that, in point of fact, it was all nonsense to describe the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Withington as wholly unsatisfactory. What the Government and the Labour party are doing, after quite an unnecessary occupation of time upstairs, is really taking the Bill of my hon. Friend.

Mr. OLIVER: Has the right hon. Member, perused the Order Paper and seen the Amendments down in the name of members of the Labour party?

Sir J. SIMON: I am delighted to see that after every member of the Labour party who voted the other way, led by the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and the hon. Member for Willesden (Mr. Viant) and everyone else who was not a member of the Liberal party, now appreciate the point, which ought to have been appreciated earlier by people who ought to have seen it. All the time, the Labour party in certain parts of the country is letting it be thought that there is another Bill, the Rent Restrictions Bill of the hon. Member for Upton (Mr. Gardner), which represents their real aspirations. Do my hon. Friends appreciate the fact that that Bill makes alternative accommodation a universal condition, and that that is a Bill which the Labour Government blesses and professes to support? We have gentlemen on the Front Bench in one breath saying that the Bill of the hon. Member for Upton
"is the sort of Bill for us"—and that is a Bill which establishes alternative accommodation as a universal rule—while at the same time the Attorney-General in Committee upstairs has torn out of the Bill of the hon. Member for Withington a provision which really would have secured that, substituting for it a proposal which gives facilities to those who buy houses hereafter, which principle I think the general sense of the House says ought not to be allowed.
I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health says that the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Withington should be accepted in substance. I quite agree that the words that he has proposed are better words, but there is one question which it would be well to consider, and I suggest this because in the Committee upstairs the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) asked the Committee to realise the spirit in which the Labour party look upon the housing problem to-day. It is an excellent thing to look upon the housing problem in the right spirit, but what matters most in dealing with the question legislatively is the language you use and the meaning of the words you employ. No amount of spirit and no amount of general rhetoric will help in the least unless we can say exactly what is the effect of the words we use. I am not quite satisfied whether the phrase, "not being a landlord who has purchased," would be understood to mean, "not being a landlord who has made an agreement to purchase," that is, signed a purchase agreement, or whether it would mean a landlord who has actually got the conveyance.
I have the impression, though it is a slight one, that a similar point arose in the Courts on an earlier Act, and before the words are finally approved I suggest that the question ought to be considered whether these words are clearly intended to mean one thing and whether they do really have the effect desired. I should have thought myself that what was meant was "not being a landlord who has actually purchased," as distinct from making an agreement which might have been made some time before the Bill was passed. I think I am right in saying that in this connection a doubt has been expressed, and I think a decision has been given. What we have to have regard to is not an agreement to purchase but the
actual conveyance. Subject to that, I hope that the hon. Member for Withington will withdraw his Amendment in favour of the words now proposed, and that the Government will consider whether the word "purchased" is adequate. When that is done, I trust that the House will agree by a great majority that the right thing is to do what the hon. Member for Withington always said was the right thing to do, namely, not to give privileges to people who try to buy houses over the heads of tenants hereafter, but to secure that greater measure of reasonable security which the Bill will give when it has been altered.

Sir T. INSKIP: I am not surprised that an hon. Member opposite asked the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) whether he was in favour of the Amendment suggested by the Government. Hon. Members by now have, no doubt, discovered that two-thirds of my right hon. Friend's speech were directed, not to the merits of the Amendment but to proving that the Liberal party were entitled to all the credit. I was very much impressed, as I always have been, with the skill of my right hon. and learned Friend. Having proved to his own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of his own party that they were entitled to credit, he turned round and suggested to the hon. Member for Withington that he should accept the Government's suggestion, thinking that the Debate would then conclude, and that the Liberal party would retire with the laurels to which neither the Attorney-General nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health would be entitled. I do not know that that quite represents the position. The position requires a little more examination.
The right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) made an unwarranted attack on the Attorney-General. He suggested that the Attorney-General gave the Committee no clear guidance on the matter. On the contrary, I think the Attorney-General gave the Committee the clearest possible guidance in the briefest and clearest possible terms. How on earth the right hon. Member for Rusholme could suggest that the Attorney-General had given no clear guidance, I cannot conceive. The Amendment was quite clearly explained to the I Committee when the Attorney-General
introduced it. He told the Committee that the Clause proposed by the Government was perhaps the simplest Clause ever put into any Rent Restriction Act. After that time the Debate ranged round the question as to whether a date should or should not be inserted. The Attorney-General said that the Government had a very clear view about it, and that the reason they attached no importance to the date was two-fold. He said:
Certainly 999 out of every 1,000 cases would take place before the date, and the number of cases that would be affected by that date are infinitesimal.
Therefore the Committee accepted the advice so clearly given by the Attorney-General and the Amendment was adopted. There was an argument on those benches that the backbone was taken out of the Bill. I am afraid that the backbone of the Government is taken out of it. We find the Government upstairs adopting one attitude and downstairs they are adopting another. Whether this is because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley suggests, the atmosphere upstairs is more bracing than in tins House when there is the proximity of the Liberal party is not clear. Even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. A. Greenwood), who has redeemed the situation, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman), must agree that in candour he ought to tell the House that there has been a complete change of front by the Government on this question. I do not think that it is treating the House with the candour with which the House expects to be treated, when the Government have changed their attitude, not to tell us that they have done so. If they tell the House that they have changed their opinion they would not suffer in the respect of the House. But they will suffer if they do a different thing from that which they were prepared to do upstairs, and yet, in order to save their faces, pretend that they are doing exactly the same thing. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health was present at the Debate in Committee and never said a word to indicate any difference of opinion, but joined in the Division in carrying the Amendment.
Now in reference to the point as to whether the Amendment was desirable or
not, I think that there were very good reasons as my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) has pointed out, for putting in the date, in the 1923 Act. There was an absolute right given to the landlord, who was a landlord before a certain date, and a qualified right given to the landlord who was a landlord after that date. In this Bill the County Court Judge is to have every circumstance before him, and to be at liberty to consider everything, it may be even the character of the tenant's wife or the landlord's wife, the size of the family and the occupation of the various members of the family. There ought not to be a distinction between the landlord, who is to be considered on the merits, as compared with the merits of the tenant. If a landlord on the 6th May bought a house and goes to the County Court Judge to get possession, and if he had done so, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, merely because he liked the house and would like to be landlord of it, then it is right that he should be refused. But suppose that the man bought a house on the 6th May, 1924, as an investment, and suppose that on the 6th May, 1926, at which date it is more than likely rent control will still be in force, his circumstances have changed, his own house, as is the fact in many cases, has tumbled down, or he has been turned out of it, is it right that he should be excluded from securing possession of his own house when his exclusion would be a greater hardship to him than to the tenant, merely because he purchased the house on 6th May instead of before the 6th May? I hope that hon. Members will recognise that there is this reason against putting in this date, when they look a little further forward than the Liberal party are prepared to look in this connection. It is really this circumstance which has been overlooked.
Too much attention has been paid by hon. Members opposite, particularly by the right hon. Member for Rusholme, to those curious creatures to whom he refers, the predatory and peripatetic landlords. I do not know where he discovered these extraordinary creatures, but he should give the County Court Judge some credit for a little common sense and knowledge of the world. The landlord whom we have to consider is the landlord who, according to the terms of the Section, reasonably requires the house for his own
occupation, and upon whom a greater hardship would fall than upon the tenant if he does not obtain possession of the house. If only hon. Members will keep their minds fixed upon that essential condition, which the County Court Judge has to find established, they will see that the Attorney-General was right upstairs in his statement that the date is immaterial, and that there ought to be no distinction between the landlord who bought his house before the date or after the date, and that the best thing to do is to leave the Clause as the Attorney-General introduced it, as a clear Clause, and to trust the County Court Judges to apply justice to each particular case as it comes before them. I hope that the Attorney-General will tell the House that, that being the man he is, he is still of the same opinion as that which he clearly expressed in Committee upstairs.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There are only two speeches to which I propose to make any reference. The first one is that of my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, and the second is that of my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), who spoke most strongly against it. The Mover of the Amendment described it as an attempt to put back into the Bill the backbone which had been taken out of it. I hope that is will not be thought that I am infringing in any way the concordat which is supposed to have been made in my respectful submission that that is nonsense, and that the Amendment does nothing of the sort. I do not think that any hon. Member of the House who considers the matter really thinks that this could, by any chance, be described as the backbone of the Bill in any form. Then my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings, who opposed the Amendment, went as far in the other direction, and said that hon. Members who supported it did not appreciate the grave injury that was done to them. That was equally an exaggeration. This date has neither the one effect nor the other.
I may repeat what I said upstairs about this matter, and I hope that I may be perfectly plain, and, so far as I have changed my view, I propose to say so plainly, and the reason why. May I point out that there is one thing about this Bill which is unique? It was in
Committee upstairs for two hours, and the whole Bill went through, and we have been down here for two hours and we have not yet got through the first Amendment. Now for the reasons which actuated me and actuated His Majesty's Government upstairs. In our view this date would affect at the most an infinitesimal number of cases. The position is that this Bill at present will run until June, 1925, and the only people who will be affected will be the people who, first of all, acquired the premises for this illicit purpose, between now and June, and are so cunning as to be able to persuade the County Court Judges to give them possession.

Sir T. INSKIP: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the control will only last until 1925? Is that the considered decision of the Government?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that it is not, and I did not intend to suggest that, but I wish to make plain what I thought about this Amendment. As the Act stands at the moment, it must be apparent to everyone who considers the matter that the number of people affected by this Amendment will be infinitesimal. On the other hand, the point made by my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings was, to my mind, equally unimportant, but there has been a matter which has been discussed and which, though I think it to be of comparatively little importance, makes it desirable that this should be put in. The reason is that there appear to be a considerable number of people who fear that unless this date is put in, there will be an immense number of landlords who will buy houses and who will turn out the tenants. It is impossible to persuade all those people, even if it were desirable or practicable, that their fears are groundless, and if that be so, both sides will probably agree that though the real risk is small yet, if the fear is genuine, the date should be put in. I believe that most Members of this House who have considered this Bill have come to the conclusion that the date is not of great importance, but that is the reason why His Majesty's Government have changed their view.
6.0 P.M.
I hope that I will not be considered wanting in respect to others who have spoken if I do not speak at greater length
but it is impossible to do so this afternoon. It does seem a pity when we were able to get through the Bill so quickly upstairs, when I certainly did suggest that no one would speak for more than five minutes, that we should have Members on all sides of the House getting up and occupying so much time in pointing out that their opponents are wrong, and it is very desirable, as there is not much importance in this matter and as His Majesty's Government have accepted the suggestion, that it should be got through without delay. The question of the word "purchased" has been referred to. I have not considered it. I confess that it is most desirable that words to the effect suggested should be put in.

Mr. SIMON: I am very glad to accept the Attorney-General's suggestion, without necessarily agreeing with all that he has said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made In page 1, line 14, after the word "landlord" insert the words
not being a landlord who has become owner by purchase of the dwelling-house after the fifth day of May, nineteen hundred and twenty-four."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out from the word "case" to the word "that" in line 18.
This Amendment is purely a drafting Amendment, but I regard it as one of considerable importance. The words which I am proposing to leave out were contained originally in an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), and, in speaking on the Bill when it was before the Standing Committee, I said that I thought that the hon. Member's words on the subject of hardship were preferable to the words which the Government proposed. They were put in. The drafting of these Bills is appallingly difficult, and we do not want to make it worse. When this Amendment is put into the 1923 Act the Clause will read as follows:
The existence of alternative accommodation shall not be a condition of an order or judgment on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (d) of this Sub-section …."—
I am reading only the relevant words—
where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord, and the Court is
satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, and including any alternative accommodation available to the landlord or tenant …
In one breath you say that the alternative accommodation shall not be required, and in the next breath you say it shall be required. Under paragraph (d) of the 1923 Act, which is referred to, a landlord has a right to obtain possession for, say, his son or daughter, if he can provide alternative accommodation. Under this Amendment the Court will have to take into consideration not only alternative accommodation but a number of other factors. The Court may be satisfied that the landlord actually was providing alternative accommodation, but the Judge might say that in other respects the hardship was so great that he would not give an order for possession. What we want to do is to leave the County Court Judge complete discretion to consider all the circumstances of the cases. If that is what we are setting out to do, is it not, as a matter of drafting, inadvisable to insert one circumstance to which you want the Judge to pay attention? Surely you do not want to mention one circumstance without the others, and if you mention all that you could think of you would make the Clause unworkable. I am sure that hon. Members opposite know that I am not trying to prevent the County Court Judge from taking full account of the quality and extent of alternative accommodation. If you are going to ask the Judge to consider all the circumstances of the case why specify only one circumstance?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope that the Noble Lord will not press this Amendment. Suppose that in the Bill now before us there was no reference to alternative accommodation. Considerable difficulty might arise in the mind of the Judge as to whether or not the preceding words by necessary implication limited, or were intended in some way to limit, him in the wide discretion which he is intended to have. These words are put in for the purpose of showing that the County Court Judge is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, but he is not to consider himself trammelled at all by the preceding words, and amongst all the circumstances which he is to consider, he is to
consider the provision of alternative accommodation.

Lord E. PERCY: Would the Attorney-General clear up the other point. Is it possible, or is it not, under the wording now, that a man might want possession of a house, that he might provide alternative accommodation, yet that under paragraph (d) he might not get possession for his son or daughter even though he provided alternative accommodation?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The Noble Lord knows that according to decisions already given, the question of reasonable hardship is always considered by the County Court Judge.

Mr. FOOT: I think that the words that it is proposed to leave out ought to be retained. If I may refer to the question which has just been put to the Attorney-General, I would say that I understand he is in some doubt as to what might happen to a landlord who desires to obtain possession for himself and cannot give alternative accommodation. The principle of Section (5) is that no one shall be able to obtain possession of a house or turn a tenant out; but under paragraph (d) he can obtain possession if, apart from any hardship of his own, he can show that there is alternative accommodation for the tenant. It is that obligation which landlords generally seek to avoid, and it is the latter part of the Section which we are now amending which gives to the landlord an advantage enabling him to say to the Judge, "I want you to take my hardship into consideration." Where he is applying under paragraph (d), a Judge does not look at his hardship. The Judge says to him, "Prove the alternative accommodation for your tenant, and it makes no difference whether you have any place to go into or not. I am not entitled to take your hardship into consideration at all. I have only to be satisfied that there is alternative accommodation for the tenant and then you are entitled to the possession of the house."He has to start in every instance with the fact that he reasonably requires the house and the Judge has an overriding jurisdiction that it is reasonable to grant the Order.
I know the difficulties. Some years ago there was a Rent Restriction Act, and we have built upon it a number of
amending Acts, until we have made it a jig-saw puzzle. It is most unfortunate that we cannot have a clean sweep of the Acts and have one Measure which even a tenant can understand. It is only a landlord or a tenant of very high intellectual capacity who can understand the Acts. As a matter of fact the lawyers have not understood it. It is quite evident from the debates in this House that there is a considerable difference of opinion amongst the lawyers, and those differences have to be settled in one court after another. The Attorney-General has pointed out what would be a real difficulty, namely, that if we eliminate these words some County Court Judges may think that they were not entitled to take into consideration the respective alternative accommodations available. It says in another part of Section 4 of the Act of 1923 that alternative accommodation is not to be a condition in certain instances, and there are County Court Judges who might say that these words rule out all consideration of all alternative accommodation. That was certainly not my intention in Committee upstairs. The words now embodied in the Bill were suggested to me by a very high authority who is in daily touch with the practice in the Courts. The words give the County Court Judge an opportunity of holding the scales before him and putting into the scales the respective hardships of the landlord and the tenant. It would be a great pity if he could not include in the relevant factors the alternative accommodation available for the landlord, and the alternative accommodation available for the tenant. At the worst the words can do no harm, but there will be a danger if we leave them out, and, having regard to the other reference in the Section, I hope the Noble Lord will not press this Amendment, and that, realising that no harm can be done by these words while some danger might be involved in their omission, we may have the Bill in its present form.

Lord E. PERCY: Having heard the Attorney-General's statement, I do not wish to press the Amendment and I am willing to withdraw, but, at the same time, I would say there is nothing so dangerous in drafting as reference to possible circumstances, and I do not feel quite satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. G. OLIVER:

In page 1, line 17, after the word "including" to insert the words "the date of purchase of the dwelling-house by the landlord and, …".

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this Amendment falls, in view of the decision which the House has already come to.

Mr. W. ALLEN: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, after the word "available," to insert the words "or which may have been available since service of the notice to quit."
Those who have had daily experience of the working of the previous Rent Restrictions Acts will appreciate at once the significance and motive of this Amendment. May I explain to those who obviously have not had the facility of following all the cases which have been decided under the previous Acts, the reason why it seems to me these words are necessary and the difficulties which they are designed to avoid. These words are necessary if there is to be any purpose in what we are discussing this afternoon. It is common knowledge that in 1921 a decision in regard to the 1920 Act made it clear that when an application was made to the County Court for an order for possession, the Judge was only in a position to take into account the alternative accommodation available for the tenant on the day when the application was heard by him. Prior to that, I believe in certain districts it had been the practice to take into consideration the accommodation which might have been available between the date when the notice to quit was served and the actual hearing before the County Court Judge.
As the result of that decision, it became the law that the Judge could only take into account the actual accommodation available on the date when the application was heard. The object of the Amendment is to avoid any possibility of this Measure being construed in like manner. In the majority of cases which come before the County Courts, even before the notice to quit is served, the landlord, if he is a business man, endeavours to satisfy himself that alternative accommodation is available for the tenant whom he seeks to dispossess. If he is sensible he looks around, and sees what he can offer to the tenant, and in nine cases out of 10 he goes to
the tenant and says, "I want this house; here is a notice to quit, and here is alter-notive accommodation which I offer to you in accordance with the Rent Restrictions Act." The House knows well that in a large number of cases there are tenants who take up what I may call a non-possumus attitude and will not leave until compelled to do so by the County Court. Whether that attitude is defensive or otherwise is immaterial for the present argument, but that is the attitude taken by a large number of tenants no matter what may be the nature of the alternative accommodation offered to them.
Obviously, in many cases it is a wholly unreasonable attitude, because what is the result? In the overwhelming majority of cases there is no likelihood of the application being heard by the County Court until the expiration of at least one month from the service of the notice. I believe in a number of areas it is more likely to be six weeks or two months. Meantime, it is obvious that accommodation, which might have been available after the notice to quit was served, will be no longer available when the case is heard by the County Court. If there is to be any purpose in this provision regarding alternative accommodation; if there is to be any object in the discussion which has been going on this afternoon, I submit the insertion of these words is imperative. Without them, the provision is virtually useless. No landlord can be sure of his power to retain alternative accommodation, for the month or two months, which would be necessary if the only criterion by which the County Court Judge can test the case is that the accommodation is there actually on the day when the application is made. I have only this to add, and I add it in recognition of possible concern which may be aroused in the minds of certain hon. Members, that there is nothing in these words which would compel the tenant to take the alternative accommodation offered to him along with the notice to quit. The only effect would be that he would, by refusing, take upon himself the responsibility of earning the condemnation, shall I say, of the Court, and of being told by the Judge that he had acted unreasonably in refusing the accommodation offered to him when the notice to quit was served.

Mr. BLACK: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I ask the Mover of this Amendment not to press it to a Division. The point he has raised it not a new point. It is a point of considerable difficulty, and one which has been raised before. Only last year an Amendment with a similar object was brought forward in the Committee stage of the Measure which was passed last year, and the then Minister of Health the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. N. Chamberlain) put an overwhelming case against it in these words:
I think, however, that he"—
that is, the Mover of the Amendment—
will see that the proposal he makes raises further difficulties of a somewhat different character, because, supposing that alternative be offered to a tenant and he accepts it, then supposing proceedings come before a Court and the Court decides that a landlord does not reasonably require the house for the purpose for which he claims it, what is the position of the tenant? He has given up the house, and after all finds he need not have done so, because the Court has decided against the landlord. He is put in a worse position. He has lost the accommodation and he has no compensation whatever."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee D), 26th June, 1923, col. 2073.]
This Amendment would put the tenant in quite an impossible position. He would be on the horns of a dilemma. He receives notice to quit, and if he does not take the alternative accommodation offered with it he goes to Court and runs the risk. He may find that having accepted the alternative accommodation he need not have done so. That is quite unfair. What I realise is that the difficulty is a real one, because there may be cases of tenants who refuse to accept alternative accommodation when they ought to do so. So far, this House has not devised means of getting round the difficulty, but this Amendment is one which has been suggested before, and has been rejected by this House because of the unfair position in which it places the tenant.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am again in a difficulty, because I am very anxious not to break the new concordat between the parties opposite. Earlier in the afternoon I had to oppose a proposal when both parties opposite seemed in agreement. Now I find there is a rift between them, and may I suggest to the Parliamentary
Secretary that he must not trust the party below the Gangway to act on behalf of the tenants. I agree with him that this is an impossible Amendment from the tenants' point of view, and I am very glad to see that the Labour party is not so wedded to the new concordat that they are prepared to give up the tenant's interest. In the circumstances I shall support the Labour party.

Mr. FOOT: I am glad to note that a spirit of accommodation is prevailing, and I wish to associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman in opposing the Amendment. Although that Amendment is proposed by an hon. Friend of mine who sits here, I consider it is hardly applicable to this Clause. An Amendment designed to meet the real difficulty should have been raised on paragraph (d) of Section 5 of the Act of last year. It is there provided that the landlord shall not be able to obtain possession unless the Court is satisfied that alternative accommodation is available, and it is on the interpretation of those words that the difficulty has arisen. The Amendment would be relevant in that respect, but it is not relevant now. When it is suggested that the Amendment should be attached to the present Bill, I think it is out of place, because under the terms of the present Bill the Judge is empowered to take all the facts into consideration, not merely alternative accommodation but all the surrounding circumstances, and it is in conceivable that he would not take into consideration the fact that a tenant had been offered proper alternative accommodation and had not availed himself of that offer. If the landlord can go to the Court and say: "I am not hard with this tenant. He had offered to him three or four weeks ago a house just as good as the house he is now occupying," that would be a relevant fact, which the Judge would take into consideration, and I urge my hon. Friend, having regard to the inapplicability of his Amendment to this Bill, but its relevance to the other part of the original Act, to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. ALLEN: In response to the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot), I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that in the case of a dwelling-house of which either the tenant or the landlord is an alien who is not British born and did not serve in the Great War, if the Court is of opinion that equal hardship would be caused to the tenant by granting as to the landlord by refusing to grant an order, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, who is a British subject shall be preferred by the Court.
I hope I shall be able to obtain for this Amendment the same unanimity as has characterised the proceedings so far. It is an important Amendment, and one which deserves consideration, because there is little doubt that a good many of the housing difficulties in different parts of the country are caused by what is known as the alien question. I think there are some 250,000 aliens in the country to-day, and in places like the East End of London undoubtedly their presence has greatly accentuated the housing difficulty, which is very severe in that part of London. The difficulties have been great for some considerable time, and they are, no doubt, much worse to-day than they were some years ago. I was very interested to read in the Report of the Alien Commission exactly how matters stood some years ago, and it might be almost a description of what is the state of affairs to-day, with this further observation, that no doubt the characterisation which the Commission gave to the subject—

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: How long ago?

Sir K. WOOD: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), who has spent a good deal of his political life in the East End of London, doubtless knows that the position is much worse now. Then, in 1902, this Commission, which was an entirely non-political body, stated in regard to these aliens:
For the most part they make their way to certain portions of the East End of London. Here they find insufficient housing accommodation, and so, for causes dealt with in this Report, being unwilling to leave the locality, they are housed under conditions most unfavourable to cleanliness and good sanitation.
It further says:
The fact is clearly established that in the East End of London—notably in certain
areas within the Borough of Stepney—there exists a most serious amount of overcrowding, greatly increased by the continuous gravitation into the district of large numbers of aliens from Eastern Europe. It is also proved that the increase in the foreign population within these areas has caused the abandonment of houses, almost of whole streets, by the English working classes, and their occupation by foreigners.
In fact, between the years 1881 and 1901 the Borough of Stepney, by virtue of alien immigration, received no less an abnormal addition than 38,000 persons, and this Report quite rightly says that
the 38,312 aliens who have arrived in the borough since 1881 have had to be provided with housing accommodation and have of necessity taken a great share in causing the regrettable condition of the district in respect of overcrowding
So far from the housing conditions having been improved, I think anyone who has any knowledge of the facts will agree that the thing has become much worse. One of the most unfortunate things that has now happened has been that, owing to the occupations of these aliens, much higher rents are being charged, and it is very unfair to British subjects. That matter was also referred to in this Report.

Captain BENN: In 1902!

Sir K. WOOD: If anyone thinks it is rather a long time ago, my answer is that matters are much worse now than they were then.

Captain BENN: Is the hon. Member proposing an Amendment to reduce the rents which are charged?

Sir K. WOOD: I will read the statement to which I was referring. It is as follows:
An offer of these higher rents"—
from the aliens in question—
tempts the landlord to dispossess the occupying tenant, who cannot afford to pay an abnormally high rent. There was strong evidence before us that many of those turned out were native workpeople, and that their houses have been occupied by aliens who, by subletting and much overcrowding, provide the means of paying the high rent which secures the creation of their tenancy.
I have been challenged, and rightly, perhaps, on the ground that those statements were made some time ago, but I have in my hand a statement, to which I referred in Committee upstairs, from the chairman of a well known housing committee in London, who has taken a great
deal of interest in this subject, confirming the view that matters have by no means improved, and, in fact, have got a great deal worse. He says that these aliens
have crowded out several districts in the West End, and, by the protection given them in the past Acts, they are generally misbehaving themselves and defying their landlords, and, in fact, have become thoroughly arrogant. On the other hand, they always keep within such limits as would prevent any landlord obtaining an order for possession from a County Court Judge, and usually claim sympathy by reason of their large families. Without doubt, they are competing against Englishmen with their labour and are keeping deserving people from homes.

Mr. PRINGLE: Who is that?

Sir K. WOOD: I will give the letter afterwards to anyone who is interested. He says:
I would like to state that, of my own knowledge and experience, which would be corroborated by any other estate agent in the district, I can safely assert that at least 90 per cent. of the residents of Soho, that is, the district bounded by Oxford Street, Coventry Street, Regent Street, and Charing Cross Road, are aliens, and at least 80 per cent. of the residents in the district bounded by Euston Road, Tottenham Court Road, Oxford Street and Great Portland Street.… To go a little further afield, certainly 90 per cent. of the residents in South St. Pancras … are similarly aliens, and a similar state of affairs exists in a large portion of North Kensington (Notting Hill) and Stoke Newington, although in the latter case they are financially of a better class.
He says this:
As a member of the St. Marylebone Borough Council, I can assert that in a large majority of the cases of prosecutions for using houses for immoral purposes the defendants are aliens, and this could, of course, be confirmed by the police or the Town Clerk, and would, I think, apply to other parts of London.
He also makes this further observation:
Most of these aliens live in the West End because they are not limited in their hours of work, and it is better for them to pay the higher rent involved to save the hour's journey each way per day, for which they are highly paid, and they have overflowed from purely working-class tenements into quite good-class flats, to the exclusion of the middle class.
That is the state of affairs which I seek to remedy by this Amendment, which simply comes to this, that if the County Court Judge, in dealing with cases which
constantly arise in districts like this, find that the hardship is equal, he shall prefer the Britisher. I cannot see what hon. Members can object to in that, and yet upstairs in Committee the Attorney-General made a very remarkable statement. He said:
There is another point of view, on which I appeal very strongly, and I know that a good many in the Committee do, and that is that, if you allow aliens to live in your country, and they keep the law and live properly, they ought not to be treated differently from other people. That is a general proposition which I know will appeal to a good many people"—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 15th April, 1924; col. 37.]
I totally differ from him in that respect, and I say that if, in cases suggested by my Amendment, the County Court Judge comes to the conclusion that the hardship is equal, the proper course to be taken is to prefer the British citizen. The same matter arose when the Aliens Restrictions Bill came before this House. The Home Secretary on that occasion was a member of the Liberal party, and he there, under another set of circumstances, took up this line. He said:
The safeguards for our people. … must be the first consideration, and where it is a choice between .… our people and the infliction of hardship upon an alien, then that hardship becomes necessary and ceases to be unjust."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1919; col. 2746; Vol. 114.]
That is a summary of what Mr. Shortt said on that occasion, and it applies to the state of affairs to-day. Here you have conflicting claims under very great difficulties with reference to the shortage of housing accommodation, and when it comes to be a question where a County Court Judge says there is an equal hardship on either side, I think it is a reasonable direction to give to him to decide that the British citizen should be preferred.

Mr. MAXTON: There cannot be equal hardship there.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member does not know the difficulties that arise in these cases, where it is almost impossible to say which hardship is the greater. If you talk to any County Court Judge about the difficulty of adjudicating in such cases, he will tell you that he is constantly in doubt as to who is suffering the greater hardship under the unfortunate circumstances that now exist. I appeal the more freely to some of the
hon. Members opposite belonging to the Liberal party, because I remember very well that, when I stood as a candidate in December, 1918, a manifesto was issued, of which the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was one of the signatories, and No. 4 of the 6 points which the right hon. Gentleman issued, in conjunction with the late Mr. Bonar Law, for the guidance of candidates on that occasion was:
Britain for the British, socially and industrially.
Therefore, I hope that all those hon. Members opposite who followed him then, and who, no doubt, follow him to-day, will see that my Amendment is in the direction to which the right hon. Gentleman pointed on that occasion. If that does not sufficiently recommend itself to many Members opposite, I do hope the sound commonsense of this Amendment may appeal to Liberal minds, and that in this respect, at any rate, where circumstances are even, they can support an Amendment which says that the Britisher shall be preferred. With that hope and desire, and in the belief that this Amendment is thoroughly reasonable, as it is, I beg to move the Amendment.

Sir T. INSKIP: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have very little to say about this Amendment, as my hon. Friend has put the case quite clearly and fully before the House. I should have less to say about it if I did not gather, from the interest with which the Amendment has been met by hon. Members on the other side of the House, that it will not receive the acceptation at their hands which I really hoped it would. The hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. Maxton) interrupted a moment ago to say that there were very few cases of equal hardship.

Mr. MAXTON: I was endeavouring to make a joke—was the tenant who was born a foreigner labouring under a hardship that could never be overcome.

Sir T. INSKIP: I apologise to the hon. Member for my lack of humour. His is always so penetrating that I ought to have been able to follow it.

Mr. MAXTON: Perhaps it is because the hon. and learned Gentleman has a Scottish wife.

Sir T. INSKIP: Hon. Members, I think, will be agreed that, generally speaking, as my hon. Friend has already said, the County Court Judges are really placed in a difficulty when they are attempting to say on which side of the scale is the greater hardship. In some cases, of course, it is perfectly obvious, where a tenant has practically nowhere to go, and has a large family whom he is bringing up, and the landlord is a single man, or a married man without children; but where you have cases of people both lacking accommodation which they and their children desire, it will be very difficult for anybody, County Court Judge or layman, to say whether there is greater hardship in one case or the other. I should have thought that in a case of equal hardship, where a County Court Judge said, after hearing all the evidence, "I really do not know on which side of the case there is greater hardship, but I do find one consideration distinguishing the applicant from the respondent, namely, that one is a British subject, and the other is a man who is not a British subject, nor is he a man who was born in this country, nor even is he a man who gave any military service in the Great War"—I should have thought everybody would say, in those circumstances, that the man who ought to be preferred, and would be preferred by 99 people out of 100, would be the British subject.

Mr. H. SPENCER: The Amendment says, "did not serve in the great War." It does not say on which side.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Member's interruption is an admirable example of the point of view which distinguishes him from me. I would point out to the hon. Member who interrupted, and who is obviously very well pleased with his interruption, that in a British Act of Parliament, when we speak on this side of the House of service in the Great War, we mean service to our own kith and kin. When the hon. Member opposite speaks of service in the Great War, he thinks it may equally mean service to our enemies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or our Allies"]—or to one of our Allies. If hon. Members really can find only that criticism of the Amendment, and are so delighted with it, it shows the poverty of the criticism which they are prepared to bring to this Amendment. It is a quibbling and
pedantic criticism, which would not have occurred to anybody except a Member of the party opposite. Hon. Members opposite really hardly do themselves credit for the ordinary commonsense which they would apply to everyday affairs. Let me consider any hon. Member empowered to dispose of a house under his control—a cottage or a mansion—and let me consider the applicant being in one case an alien who has not served in the Great War—and served in the sense in which I understand the expression—and let the other applicant be a person, a British subject, who perhaps served in the Great War. Is there an hon. Member on the benches opposite who would not say to these two applicants, "You are each of you excellent persons as far as character is concerned. I understand each of you desires to bring up a family in healthy and commodious conditions. I have but one house, and there are two applicants for it. As I am not able to give the judgment of Solomon, and divide the house between the two of you, I must select one of you, and I shall select the one who is of my own kith and kin, and a member of my own race."
There is not a single hon. Member opposite—I give them credit for this—who would proceed upon a different method. There is not a single hon. Member opposite who would say to the alien, "I find you are equally deserving with the member of my own race, but I prefer you to a British subject, and put you into the house, which is the only house I have."We are simply attempting to put into force the same reasons which would guide any hon. Member opposite in the arrangement of his own affairs, and the disposal of his own property. It is really time in this House that we began to treat this question of aliens with a little more sobriety and sincerity. You have only to raise a question as between the alien and the British subject to evoke the greatest possible amount of contempt for the British subject, and support for the alien on the benches opposite. I remember a speech which was delivered a little while ago on the bench opposite by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He was addressing himself to a very different question, but he addressed some observations to the Government Bench and the Prime
Minister, and said it was about time that somebody stood up for British rights. Without apologies to the right. hon. Gentleman, I will borrow his sentiment and expression, and I will ask that, inasmuch as the Bill does not provide for what is to happen when the Judge is unable to say on which side of the scale the greater hardship exists, in these cases which exist in certain of the districts of London, and in Leeds and other great cities, where the aliens are a very numerous population, a British subject who comes along shall be entitled to the privileges which, at any rate on this side of the House, we believe are the privileges of a, person who shares our own birthright.

Mr. GREENWOOD: In order to shorten the discussion. I rise immediately to ask the Mover of the Amendment to withdraw it. I shall submit at least one reason, which hon. Members opposite must accept. We are opposed to this Amendment because it is an Amendment which discriminates not against all aliens but against certain aliens, and it does introduce what we believe—and, I think, many hon. Members on the other side, on reflection, will believe—is a retrograde principle, which distinguishes against aliens resident here in the provision of protection which we give to them and to our own subjects. I do not accept the view of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the words "did not serve in the Great War" must be taken to mean "did not serve this nation in the Great War." The hon. and learned Member may think it means that to him, but it does not say so.

Sir T. INSKIP: Will the hon. Member allow the Amendment to be slightly altered by saying, "did not serve the British nation in the Great War"?

7.0 P.M.

Mr. GREENWOOD: According to the Amendment, we should be putting the Turk in the same position as the little Belgian dressmaker in London. The Turk who served in the Great War, although he fought against us, would be a good alien; but that would not apply to the little French milliner in Soho. I am not sure it is easy to arrive by some process of mathematics at "equal hardship," and, in practice, I am inclined to think that this provision would make the already difficult task of the
County Court Judges even harder. This question of rent restriction has created a good deal of controversy inside this country. So far it has not become a matter of international complication, but this Amendment, if carried, would raise international questions of some importance. I cite one case. There may be others. Rumania has somewhat similar rent restriction legislation to this country, and under Rumanian law no discrimination is made against foreigners so long as no discrimination is made against Rumanians in other countries. The effect of passing this Amendment would be to penalise any British subject Who happened to live in Rumania. This Amendment also happens to be in direct conflict with an important Treaty of Commerce. It happens to be in conflict with the provisions of our Treaty with Japan, Article 1 of which secures that the
Japanese people shall be permitted to own or hire and occupy houses, manufactories, warehouses, shops and premises, and to lease land for residential, commercial, industrial and other lawful purposes in the same manner as native subjects.

Lieut.-Colonel J. WARD: Is that reciprocal? Is it not a fact that Japan will not allow a foreigner to own land except such as they got many years ago.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not concerned with that; it is not the point.

Mr. REMER: Is that the Commercial Treaty the hon. Member is referring to?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes.

Mr. REMER: Is it not a fact that they have given notice to put an end to that Treaty?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Treaty is now in operation. The point is that we are bound by this Treaty. Apart from the other arguments, that argument alone is sufficient, I am sure, to persuade the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) to withdraw his Amendment.

Mrs. PHILIPSON: I would not have spoken in this Debate, because I feel that no one can put the case better for the British subject than the hon. Member for Central Bristol (Sir T. Inskip), but I feel very strongly on this subject, and can quote a case where I do consider there was hardship.

An HON. MEMBER: Ex-King Manuel!

Mrs. PHILIPSON: No. This is one of the cases that could be settled under this Bill. I was asked to go and see the widow of an ex-service man who was living in one room with her father-in-law, very aged and very ill in bed, and with her two children. She sent for me because she was being evicted from that place. She was paying 8s. a week, and was being evicted because a foreigner wanted to open a shop in that room. He already had premises in the same place, but no shop. I think this is a case that really comes under, and would be settled by, this Bill. I feel, as a woman, that the patriotism of the Liberal party opposite has been plainly shown, and I do feel that I am voicing the opinion of many of the men and women in this country who are British subjects and British ex-service men. I know of several other cases in which this Amendment would do the same good. It is not penalising the alien, as many hon. Members opposite seem to think. It is for someone to be able to settle really hard cases, and I feel that British people, when they have fought for their country, should be given a preference over the foreigner. It is in the interests of those British people that I venture to speak in this Debate. It is a subject on which everyone in this House feels very strongly. The Liberal party will have an opportunity now of showing their patriotism to the people of the country. They seem to think British interests are always last.

Captain BENN: I hope the hon. Member will excuse me if I controvert some of the opinions which she has expressed. I wish to do it with perfect courtesy, but I wish to point out that patriotism is not shown by Amendments of this sort. It is a very remarkable thing, and I have noticed it in Debates in this House, that you will seldom, if ever, get to an Amendment of this kind the name of a man who, with a gun in his hand, has had any first-hand experience of an alien. These patriotic lawyers! This is not the first example. Patriotism does not consist in being unjust. It does not consist, if the hon. Member will permit me, in telling your Law Courts, "You are not to hold the scales of justice equal. If a man belongs to this nation he is to have an advantage." Does the Noble Lord, who is voci-
ferrous, if not articulate, say that where a man approaches a British Court of Justice the Judge is to ask where was he born and whether he is a Britisher?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me. I do not know what he fought for in the War—he fought very gallantly—but I fought to stop aliens having an advantage in this country which they ought not to have.

Captain BENN: The Noble Lord fought very gallantly, as I know, but I have yet to learn that anybody fought in the War in order that when the Judge takes his seat someone shall whisper into his ear, "This man is a foreigner." What sort of justice is that? Three distinguished lawyers have framed an Amendment, and there is only one thing certain about it, and that is that a man gets an advantage by it. A German who fought in the War against us is protected in this Amendment. That is the best drafting which these eminent lawyers can contribute to the British Parliament. An ex-Solicitor-General! There is another thing. There was not a word in the speech of the Mover of this Amendment germane to the Amendment. It was a heap of prejudice from beginning to end; that the aliens work harder than our people work for sweated wages, and they charge high rents. But when I asked if he was in favour of reducing the rents, not at all. They were arrogant. A monstrous thing that anyone should be arrogant. And they flooded into the flats and crowded out the middle classes. Not one single word dealt with the subject of the Amendment which says the Courts of Law shall have regard to something else than the rights of the case that is before them. It is an Amendment which I venture to say is utterly alien to the proud spirit of British justice. We have heard a great deal from hon. Gentlemen opposite about our Allies and our pride in our Allies and our desire to keep friends with those who fought with us. They are not protected. The only person protected is the ex-German soldier. The Frenchman is not protected; the Belgian is not protected; all these people are to be penalised under this Amendment, the like of which has scarcely ever been seen before in the British House of Commons,
and, thank God, has never been seen on the Statute Book. It is degrading this country to the level of Turkey. It is alleged that in Turkey and Russia which suffer under tyrannous government, a foreigner cannot be sure of justice in the Courts. This is the same slur that hon. and learned Gentlemen propose to put on our country. Let me tell the hon. Member that we are as good patriots as the people opposite.

Mr. MILLS: The Amendment which has been brought forward differs somewhat from the Amendment brought forward in Committee, but substantially it is the same. I merely want to ask whether or not we are to have anything like clarity as to the actual meaning of the Amendment. If you put half-a-dozen of the keenest legal brains of this House in one room and kept them there until they could make sense of this Amendment, they would have to plead for mercy without being able to say they could come to anything intelligible. I would be willing to consider the proposed Amendment a little more if we could add after the words "did not serve in the Great War," the words
unless they served in the native States of India Army, the French or Belgian Army, the Serbian Army, the Rumanian Army or the Polish Army, or the Montenegrin Army or the Japanese Army"—
for all of those armies contributed something to the success of the Allied cause, and it is on record. Still, if we are to get an exhaustive list in order to be just to the Allies who served in the War, then if they will bring it along for the consideration of this House again, we may be able to reduce a very bad joke in a very bad case to something which may be intelligible to the Members of this House.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "serve" ["did not serve in the Great War"] to insert the words
the British Empire or its Allies.
If this Amendment be accepted, the words will read
is an alien who is not British-born and did not serve the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War—
and so on. In view of the doubt that has been raised by hon. Members opposite as to the proposed Amendment being com-
prehensive, perhaps the words I have suggested will remove any objection. I think what I have suggested will meet the case in a simple and definite manner. After all, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Captain W. Benn) said that a lot of this was merely quibbling.

Captain BENN rose—

Colonel GRETTON: I should like to give my case before the hon. and gallant Gentleman rises again. May I suggest that the general case that has been put forward is not comparable in the present issue. At present we are in great difficulty, for we have not houses for our own people. It is a temporary matter. We are dealing with a special case at this time, and a special difficulty pressing upon our nation, and we are entitled to take special precautions that where, in circumstances it would be an equal hardship inflicted upon a British subject or an alien domiciled here, that the British subject should not suffer that hardship and that the alien should not receive undue consideration. We are not dealing with the general principle of equal justice which all admit should be administered to all. That general principle is not at stake nor is the proposed Amendment in opposition to it.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I beg to second the Amendment. The suggestions put forward by hon. Members on the opposite side are unfortunate in one sense, because there are other countries which do not give British subjects the kind of treatment that we give an this country to the nationals of those countries. For instance, in some Treaties not only is no British subject allowed to hold property or to leave it to his heirs, but he has got to get special permission even to have business premises. That is not a condition that applies to this country. There may be other similar Treaties, and if there are the House ought to be informed what they are, and how long they are to be in force. I understand, in connection with the discussion of the legislation we are considering, that some of it is even dependent upon foreign Treaties. If so, we ought to know exactly what they are. I suggest that someone on the Treasury Bench, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, say, might come to the House and let us know what other Treaties, if any, are
involved. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Gretton) who moved this Amendment to the proposed Amendment I think made it perfectly clear that there was no case of differentiation in the matter of justice as between aliens and British subjects, but a Judge has to make up his mind in the matter of two equal cases. He has got to be in a sense unjust to one or the other because the supposition is that the hardship in both cases is equal. That is the real position. If so, how can it possibly be a case of unequal justice? The hon. and gallant Gentle man the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) said that this would be the same kind of justice as Turkey metes out. I am not in the least afraid on that score, because in the ease here the conditions are equal between the two parties, and that, for the moment, the hon. and gallant Gentleman loses sight of. If the two things are equal, they are equal! Therefore, I do think the House is perfectly entitled to assist the Judge in deciding in this case of equality. There is one point I should like to put forward, which, I venture to say, should weigh with any Britisher—not the party opposite—and that is what one must do to protect one's own nationals. I for my part would like to see this House protecting its own nationals a great deal more than it does at present.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That the words 'the British Empire or its Allies' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment". The discussion must be confined to this point till the Amendment is disposed of.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: The hon. and gallant Member, who moved and seconded this Amendment to the proposed Amendment have shown by doing so that in their opinion the original Amendment is quite unsatisfactory. I think that in itself it is highly inadequate to meet the objections that have been brought against it. It is petty and ungenerous and will work very serious injustice Then, again, take the case of the United States. Though not technically allied, the United States is an Associated Power. The citizens of the United States are in no way protected by this Amendment to the proposed Amendment. You could, however, put the case in a more serious form, because the whole of one sex is dis-
qualified from getting the benefit of the Amendment, as it would not apply to any woman who has been unable to serve in the War on account of sex. There are many cases of French or Italian governesses who have lived all their lives in this country. There are hard-working seamstresses as well. These would not in any way get the benefit of this protection. I am not convinced when you come to study the actual position whether, anyhow, any of these words suggested really meet the case. There are cases that cannot be met by the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, of men who came into this country as children, aliens whose sons fought in the War, and in some cases lost their lives. They would not be protected in any way. There are quite a number of cases, too, in this country of poor people, too poor to take out their naturalisation papers, but who have lived practically all their lives in this country and have lost their sons in the service of the country. I hope very much that the House will reject both the Amendment to the Amendment and the Amendment itself. The only way to do what is wanted, I suggest, is not by the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, but by a short one Clause Bill which might be brought in by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), say, applying to all aliens, and enacting that they should at once vacate what premises they have in this country.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down does not seem to be very well acquainted with the actual conditions, for under the Rent Restrictions Act we have discriminated between the ex-service man who served in the War and others of his own countrymen, and if we discriminate between the ex-service man and our own British subjects, why should we not discriminate between aliens who have served us or our Allies in the War and other aliens?

Mr. MILLS: Under certain conditions?

Lord E. PERCY: Yes, under certain conditions. As to the proposed words not covering Americans, the same words, I think, have been used in previous Acts of Parliament, and I understand, have been held to cover Americans—

Mr. SPEAKER: If we dispose of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, we can get back to the point. Perhaps if will be convenient if the House agree to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, and then we can again deal with the question on its merits.

Question, "That the words 'the British Empire or its Allies' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

Lord E. PERCY: I have already pointed out that we exercise discrimination between ex-service men and others of our own nationals, but I cannot allow the view to go that this kind of action collides with the general formulæ of commercial and consular conventions which give equal rights to aliens and nationals in the Courts of the country for the purposes of property, etc. The two things have really nothing at all to do with each other. That it should be otherwise is absolutely contrary to my recollection of any controversy with foreign Powers about the interpretation of these clauses in consular and commercial agreements, and I have gone through many of them. As we are deprived of Government assistance in this matter, I can only say that I think it is entirely wrong to suggest that this proposed Amendment collides in any way with the provisions to which I have referred.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): The Amendment does, in fact, conflict with that equality of rights before the Courts which we have undertaken in the various Treaties mentioned to accord to foreigners. While I am not able, on the spur of the moment, to give a list of these treaties, nor is the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs able to do so, I still maintain that it is not necessary because, if there is one such treaty, all foreign Powers that have the most-favoured-nation clause I can claim the same treatment as that; which is afforded to any single Power. The most-favoured-nation clause is not always regarded by some hon. Members opposite with favour when it conflicts with the freedom to put on this or that tax, but the whole history of the Board of Trade is very strongly in favour of
maintaining that principle. We are always fighting for it in our negotiations with other countries, and we do find that it protects traders from being discriminated against.
Therefore, I think the House should pause before it does anything to indicate that we are prepared to weaken in our support of this valuable principle, and in the opinion of the Board of Trade this particular Amendment does conflict with the equity of treatment before the Law Courts which we have undertaken to give to various foreign countries under the Treaties concerned. It is said that this is not a case of equity but of hardship. As a matter of fact we want these cases to be decided by law and in accordance with the rights of the parties concerned. The question of hardship is put in where one party has no better right than the other under the Statute. If you are going to introduce this principle apart from that consideration, and decide on the hardship of the case, then you must stand by the law, and I ask the House not to cast any doubt upon our adhesion to the most-favoured-nation clause, and equity and right before the Courts.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot help feeling that the speech which has just been made by the President of the Board of Trade would have been more, appropriate if the Amendment to the Amendment had not been carried. If the Clause stood as originally drafted, then the remarks of the light hon. Gentleman would have been entirely appropriate to the discussion. May I point out that we have now included all the allied countries, and I am not so sure that we have any commercial treaties with any but allied nations. The right hon. Gentleman says that this proposal would be a breach of some of those commercial treaties, but I do not think there are any such treaties in existence except with allied countries.

Mr. WEBB: Yes, with neutral countries as well.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The main object of putting in this Clause was to deal with enemy aliens. The right hon. Gentleman went on, I will not say to insult, but to make various remarks of an uncomplimentary character about the way justice was administered in a friendly country. The justice that is going to be
administered under this Act, and has been administered, is not the kind which has been referred to, because it is not a question of law under any of these Bent Restrictions Acts. The County Court Judge is appointed as a kind of arbitrator, and he does not decide questions of law. He has merely to say where the hardship lies. Therefore the argument used by the President of the Board of Trade does not arise, because the County Court Judge has to decide where the greatest hardship lies, and whether a landlord should be allowed to turn out a tenant, or a tenant to sit there and cause injury to the landlord by so doing. The Amendment is to meet the case where the hardship is in fact equal. Take a British landlord and an alien tenant. The landlord goes to the County Court Judge, and before the Judge can decide whether he is an alien or not, he has to be satisfied that the hardship is so equal that he does not know which way to decide. It may be a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. On the other hand suppose it is a case of an alien landlord and British tenant. Again, before the Judge can take into consideration the fact of the landlord being an alien, he has to find such equity between the two that he is again in a difficulty. This Clause only comes into operation where the hardship is equal, and under circumstances in which the case is so equal this Amendment provides that the Britisher is to have the benefit of the doubt.
On matters of this kind, I have been long enough in the House to know which section of the House votes in favour of the alien, and which does not, and I am very sorry to see the Labour party sinking down to the level of the pro-aliens on the Liberal Benches. It is a case of "evil communications corrupting good manners," and if there is too much concordat I am afraid the Labour party will be found voting in favour of the aliens and against the British. This is not a retrograde movement, but a forward movement, and we are prepared to go forward as much as we can, giving rights to Britishers as against aliens, whether hon. Members below the Gangway like it or not. There are lots of points in our municipal law which do not give equal rights to aliens as compared with Britishers. For example, an alien cannot hold a share in a British ship. In spite of all your commercial treaties we
do retain certain rights to prevent aliens having an equality with our own subjects This may be a small matter, but it is one upon which people feel very strongly, and if I were a Judge and had to decide in a case where one of the parties was a British soldier who had fought in the War and the other was an alien, I would most certainly, other things being equal, dip the scale in favour of the Britisher.

Mr. GREENWOOD: May I make another appeal to hon. Members opposite to withdraw this Amendment? The Amendment to the Amendment was accepted, and it only referred to the people who had served during the War. The Japanese people who did not serve in the War will be outside the operation of this proposal. In so far as treaties are concerned which deal with property rights, we are bound by those treaties, and if the Japanese are to be protected by this Bill other nationals will claim the protection of the most-favoured-nation

Clause. I do not want to raise any storm over such a question as this, but I do beg hon. Members opposite to act as British citizens with some regard for the integrity of British treaties. It seems to me unjust to fling these terms across the Floor of the House, and for hon. Members to act in the most little-England manner possible. The honest thing to do is to act in accordance with British interests, and not do anything that conflicts with any Treaty at present in force. Under these circumstances I ask hon. Members to withdraw this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put accordingly, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 185.

Division No. 64.]
AYES.
[7.47 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Alexander, Brg-Gen. Sir W. (Glas, C.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Meller, R. J.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Atholl, Duchess of
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Nesbitt, Robert C.


Austin, Sir Herbert
FitzRoy, Captain Rt. Hon. Edward A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Becker, Harry
Gretton, Colonel John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Pennefather, Sir John


Berry, Sir George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Phillpson, Mabel


Blundell, F. N.
Harland, A.
Raine, W.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Brass, Captain W.
Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Richardson, Lt.-Cot. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Robinson, W. E. (Burslem)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Ropner, Major L.


Bullock, Captain M.
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burman, J. B.
Howard, Hon. D. (Cumberland, North)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hughes, Collingwood
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Cassels, J. D.
Huntingfield, Lord
Shepperson, E. W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clayton, G. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. R.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Cope, Major William
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sutcliffe, T.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Lamb, J. Q.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lane-Fox, George R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lyle, Sir Leonard
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Deans, Richard Storry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Dixey, A. C.
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Warrender, Sir Victor


Wells, S. R.
Wise, Sir Fredric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)
Wolmer, Viscount
Sir Kingsley Wood and Sir Thomas


Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.
Inskip.


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Phillipps, Vivian


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Alden, Percy
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Raffan, P. W.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Haycock, A. W.
Raffety, F. W.


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Hemmerde, E. G.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford


Aske, Sir Robert William
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Raynes, W. R.


Ayles, W. H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Rea, W. Russell


Baker, W. J.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Banton, G.
Hillary, A. E.
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hobhouse, A. L.
Romeril H. G.


Barnes, A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Royle, C.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Scrymgeour, E.


Birkett, W. N.
Hudson, J. H.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Black, J. W.
Isaacs, G. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bondfield, Margaret
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bonwick, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Simpson, J. Hope


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Jones, Rt. Han. Leif (Camborne)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Smillie, Robert


Broad, F. A.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Keens, T.
Snell, Harry


Buckie, J.
Lansbury, George
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Laverack, F. J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Law, A.
Spence, R.


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Leach, W.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Church, Major A. G.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Clarke, A.
Loverseed, J. F.
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Climie, R.
Lowth, T.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Sullivan, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
McCrae, Sir George
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tattersall, J. L.


Costello, L. W. J.
McEntee, V. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Crittall, V. G.
Macfadyen, E.
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Darbishire, C. W.
Maden, H.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Dickie, Captain J. P.
March, S.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dickson, T.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dodds, S. R.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Thornton, Maxwell, R.


Dukes, C.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Thurtle, E.


Duncan, C.
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dunn, J. Freeman
Millar, J. D.
Tout, W. J.


Egan, W. H.
Mills, J. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Falconer, J.
Mond, H.
Varley, Frank B.


Foot, Isaac
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Franklin, L. B.
Morris, R. H.
Vivian, H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Morse, W. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Gillett, George M.
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Weir, L. M.


Gosling, Harry
Murray, Robert
Westwood, J.


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Naylor, T. E.
Wignall, James


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Nixon, H.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kenningtn.)


Greenall, T.
O'Grady, Captain James
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Wintringham, Margaret


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
O'Neill, John Joseph
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffith, Rt. Hon. Sir Ellis
Owen, Major G.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Groves, T.
Palmer, E. T.



Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hardie, George D.
Perry, S. F.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Dr. Haden


Harney, E. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Guest.


Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

CLAUSE 2.—(Application of Act to pending proceedings.)

Mr. PERRY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "principal Act" and to insert instead thereof the words "Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 and 1923."

Mr. GREENWOOD: This is a very necessary drafting Amendment, and I
think it is accepted in all quarters of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WEST INDIAN ISLANDS (TELEGRAPH) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Issue of money out of Consolidated Fund for purposes of Act), and 2 (Borrowing for purposes of Act) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Annual expenses of system.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have an Amendment on the Paper—at the end of the Clause, to add as a new Sub-section:
(4) The sums payable under this Section by the Government of any contributing Colony shall be apportioned amongst the Governments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act in the proportions therein specified.
I propose, however, not to move this Amendment, but rather to speak on the Clause. I know that the Colonial Secretary has to go, and that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will reply to any points, and I do not wish to stand in the right hon. Gentleman's way, because we quite understand the circumstances of the case. The first point that I want to make is a small one, to prepare the way for my Amendment to the Preamble, after the word "Antigua" to insert the word "Montserrat." The Amendment which I have on the Paper to Clause 3 is covered already by the second paragraph of the Preamble, which provides for the money which is to be dealt with under Clause 3, namely, the annual expenses of this new system of submarine cables and wireless. If there are any profits, they are to be allocated as in the Schedule, and the contributions, as I gather from second paragraph of the Preamble, which are to be available for the purposes of Clause 3, are to be in similar proportions.
My first point is that 14 shares out of the total are to be contributed by the Federal Exchequer of the Leeward Islands, and that in the Bill telegraphic communication, whether by cable or by wireless, is only provided for three out of the five contributors to those revenues. The Leeward Islands are a federation, and the Federal Services are going to contribute these 14 shares, which are fixed percentages on each of the five con-
8.0 P.M.
stituent elements of the Federation. Three of the constituent elements are to have cable or wireless communication, namely, St. Kitts-Nevis, Antigua, and Dominica. I gather that all of them, in the first instance, are to be linked by wireless, because the new cable system which is being provided by this Bill merely provides for a cable from Turks Islands to Barbados, with two other cables, one from Barbados to Trinidad and one from Barbados to British Guiana. The remainder are provided with communication with the central wireless station in Barbados. In fact, Barbados is to be the general junction for the wireless and the two subsidiary cables. St. Kitts, Antigua and Dominica are to be connected with this new system, but, unfortunately, Montserrat has got to contribute and yet gets no service. If there are any profits, under Clause 4, St. Kitts-Nevis, Antigua and Dominica are, apparently, going to get some of those profits. Montserrat will get nothing. If there is one of the West Indian Islands which has been thoroughly badly served in the past, it is Montserrat; and Montserrat under the arrangement which, I gather, has been made, will, through the Leeward Island Federation, have to contribute to the new scheme and get nothing out of it. I may as well deal with this, so that it will shorten the proceedings of my Amendment to the Preamble, because that is the gravamen of my charge. You are providing for a distribution of profits and a share of expenses, but you are not giving an equal service. It would be a very cheap thing, compared with the total amount you are spending under this Bill, to provide a small wireless station in the Island of Montserrat. Hitherto this island has had no telegraphic communication at all, and it is high time that it had it. I remember when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. E. Wood), and I, were going to Montserrat from Antigua, an accident took place in Antigua, and we were prevented from going. There was no means of communication, however, and we had to cancel our visit. The only method of communication that has been attempted is by heliograph. From time to time heliographic communication has been attempted from the Island of Montserrat
to Antigua, but it has almost invariably failed, partly because the Island of Montserrat, being mountainous, is frequently covered in cloud, while the Island of Antigua, which is much less mountainous, is not in the clouds. Therefore, communication by heliograph has been very difficult. The distance is approximately the same as that between Boulogne and Folkestone, but there has been no cable and no wireless communication between those two islands. It is high time, when we are providing for the West Indian telegraph and taking money to do so, that we should complete the system by establishing a small wireless station in Montserrat. If the representatives of the Treasury who worked out the figures under this Bill say that it would be expensive to equip a transmitting station there, at least let them have a Government receiving station. It would make a very great difference. There is a small community of 12,000 people on this island, which has been sadly neglected. These inhabitants, utterly cut off as they are, and receiving very little news from the outside world, are yet one of the most go-ahead of the smaller West Indian communities. They are, I think, the principal West Indian producers of Sea Island cotton, and formerly they made their name famous by the production of Montserrat lime juice. This is a small point, leading up to my Amendment on the Preamble, which I intend to press.
The other point I want information about is: what are the agreements which Clause 3 makes operative? It states:
Such sums as are received from any Government of a Dominion or Colony on account of the annual expense of the said system shall be paid into the Exchequer.
What are those sums? They obviously refer to agreements made by the various Governments referred to in lines 13 and 14 of the Preamble. I gather that certain arrangements have been made between the various contributing Governments as to what these sums shall be. On the Financial Resolution the Secretary of State for the Colonies gave us certain figures, but they were the figures for the old system, which passes away when this Bill becomes operative, namely, the annual subsidies paid by the various contributing Governments to the West India and the Panama Telegraph Company. I want to know if the same
sums are guaranteed by the British Government, and the various contributing Governments, towards the new service provided in this Bill, as were provided towards a subsidy for the West India and Panama Telegraph Company. Those are the two main points on Clause 3. Then we have this point:
The amount required in each year for the annual expenses of the said system shall be defrayed out of receipts arising in connection with the said system, and, so far as those receipts are not sufficient, out of moneys provided by Parliament.
That caused a certain doubt in my mind when I first read it. It appeared that in so far as the users of the cable and wireless failed to pay the working expenses of the new system, the whole of the deficit was going to fall on this House. I gather, from the answer of the Colonial Secretary the other day, that that is not so, and that Sub-Section (3) is really a reference to this matter. It is due to the fact that we are so terrified of putting into any Bill or any Act of Parliament anything which would look like taxing the Colonies. Ever since the incident of the Boston Tea Duty, apparently, we are very careful how we phrase our Acts of Parliament. Therefore, we get such samples of drafting as in the present case, which, coupled with the Preamble, really makes the Clause, on the face of it, rather foolish. Everybody knows that we are not going to bear the whole of the expense. If the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill can give me answers to those three points which I raise, namely, the Montserrat question, the question of the actual amounts agreed on with the various contributing Governments, and to which they are liable under this Clause, and a clear understanding that the money necessary is not going to be provided entirely by the British Exchequer, that will satisfy me, and I shall be much obliged.

Mr. REMER: After the very clear speech which we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), I rise because he has mentioned the question of the Island of Montserrat, in which I am specifically interested. I am unable to understand the reasons for not including this island in the Bill. The present state of things is causing very serious inconvenience and trouble to Montserrat. It is also causing that community to suffer in its prosperity
as it has suffered in the past through the inattention of our Governments to this Pacific island. It is important that we should look just for a moment at the value that this particular island of Montserrat is to cur country. The three particular things grown in this island are sugar, Sea Island cotton, and the famous Montserrat lime juice. As regards the lime juice, I am quite sure that in view of the very hot weather we all hope we are going to have this summer, and when the Exhibition is in full bloom, we shall enjoy the Montserrat lime juice. Sugar I am not going to deal with, but I particularly want to deal with the question of Sea Island cotton. It is a cotton which is produced with the longest staple in the world. It is very largely used by the fine cotton spinners of this country, and, as hon. Members know, the finest cotton spinners are the people who are largely connected with those parts of the cotton industry which have been busy, even during the depression of the last two or three years. Just outside my constituency, at Bollington, most of the Sea Island cotton is spun into fine yarn, and when I tell the Committee that one pound weight of cotton spun from Sea Island cotton will stretch from Macclesfield to London and back—a distance of something like 200 miles—it will show how wonderful that particular cotton is, and how valuable is its staple. We are deliberately throwing the value of this cotton away. It is most important that, situated as we are at the present time, we should encourage, not only larger growths of cotton, but a finer quality of cotton. We can only do that by improving such islands as the island of Montserrat and encouraging them to grow this beautiful and fine cotton. Yet we are in this Bill trying to discourage them from growing it I have gone to a great deal of trouble to look out the financial position of this island. It is very interesting. In 1900 its revenue was only £60,000. Last year that figure was more than doubled. The expenditure in 1900 was £9,000 and last year it was less than £8,000. Imports in 1900 amounted to £26,000. Now they are over £50,000. Exports in 1900 were only £8,000 and last year they were over £60,000. Those figures are very remarkable. They show that even in spite of the systematic discouragement of the island by the British Government they
have shown the most wonderful progress, and if they had had encouragement they would have secured an even greater result. I feel very strongly that unless something is done to encourage this island to a far greater extent it will have a most serious effect upon our status and our position in the West Indian Colonies, and I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to give some information which will be of greater advantage to them than they have had in the past. After all they are entitled to better consideration. Their history, with their long line of associations with this Empire, entitles them to much greater consideration than they have had. It is true there are only 12,000 odd people in the island, but their position and their natural resources make it very essential that we should give them better consideration.
I have been trying to find out why it is that we have given them such scanty support, and I think I have at last found a reason, because the people in this island speak with an Irish brogue, therefore possibly it may be another injustice to the Irish nation. In the early seventeenth century Irish people colonised the island, and their brogue is still maintained. I think there is perhaps a further reason. The chief town is known as Plymouth. I am sure when we come to examine all that can be written about the island—we find it is cool and healthy and there is no malaria—it is just the island which we should try to encourage. It has a mean annual temperature of something like 78 fahrenheit and a rainfall of 40 to 80 inches. It was discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1493, and was first colonised by Sir Thomas Warner in 1632.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is giving us what is to him, no doubt, the interesting history of the island, but it is not in order on this Bill. He should restrict himself purely to the Amendment.

Mr. REMER: I was trying to show that we should do all in our power to encourage the island for the purpose of increasing its prosperity. It was first colonised—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must obey my ruling. I told him he could not go into the history of this Colony. He must restrict himself to the Amendment.

Mr. REMER: I was speaking on the point of Order, and as you did not dissent, I thought you had waived your objection. Here we have shipping going into and outside the island at great danger and passing through grave difficulties. I am told the roadstead of Plymouth is not by any means too safe. But we are not providing in this Bill any wireless station whatsoever, causing great difficulty in bringing goods from Montserrat to England, when it is most vital to encourage trade with her. I feel very strongly that the Government have shown a good deal of contempt in this matter. It was raised on the Second Reading, and we have not the slightest intimation that they are even considering the point. This is the only island of the West Indies which is deprived of wireless communication. Why it should be so excluded I do not know. I implore the hon. Gentleman to tell us exactly why wireless communication is not provided, and when he proposes that it shall be provided, and to tell us definitely that at some future date it will be provided, and that in future better attention will be given to the island than has been given in the past.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: My hon. Friend seems to have been very effectively pushing a new health resort, and, although I did not discover it quite so early as Columbus, I can safely say it is one of the most attractive islands under the British Grown. I did not rise, however, to continue a discussion on Montserrat, but again to try to make a point which I have raised on the two previous occasions when the matter has been before the House, that is, from the point of view of the control of these cables themselves, whether they are really satisfied and whether the Colonial Secretary will really satisfy himself whether the control is absolutely British or not. I saw the Colonial Secretary leave the House, and I intended to postpone my remarks until the Third Reading, but it has occurred to me that if I make them now the Financial Secretary—I cannot expect that he is entirely au fait with all the details—will pass them on to his colleague, who will be able to find answers to my additional queries before the Third Reading takes place. On the 31st March this Cable Bill came up, and I then asked the Colonial Secretary
whether we were to have a really British all-red route, and he said "Yes." I asked him whether this cable was to be entirely British-controlled, and he assured me "Yes." I was not quite satisfied, and I again raised the point on 8th April, when I elicited that a certain proportion of the capital of these two cable companies was held in the United States, and that one of the directors was an American, although he had never taken any active part or management in the concern.
I have since gathered a certain amount of further information which I find rather disquieting, and I would like the Financial Secretary to pass on the information to the Colonial Secretary. These two cable companies are controlled by the same number of directors and the same personnel. These directors are: Sir Thomas Skinner, Mr. T. H. Skinner, Mr. H. F. Russell, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Clapperton. Every one of these directors is also a director or employé of the big American Cable Trust, Sir Thomas Skinner, the chairman, being a director of the Commercial Cable Company. Mr. H. F. Russell is the manager in England of the Commercial Cable Company, which, I need hardly say, is the leading American concern. Mr. R. G. Hughes is the electrician in England of the Commercial Cable Company, and Mr. Clapperton, who died recently, was a vice-president of the Commercial Cable Company in the State of New York. Surely these facts go to show that even though these gentlemen are British subjects there must naturally be a strong American influence at the side of them. I am all for the closest co-operation with the United States, but we have heard that this is to be an all-red British cable, and it is important to find out whether it is entirely British, both from the point of view of personnel and control of the capital.
I put a question to the Colonial Secretary in regard to the capital, which I was assured was British, but I have found out that 55 per cent. of the capital of the companies is held by United States nationals, or British interests acting as nominees for this American Cable Company. Since I put the question down, I have been informed that arrangements have been made to transfer a certain amount of stock from the Commercial
Cable Company to the chairman of the Bermuda company, who is a British subject, but who, as I have already pointed out, is a director of the American Commercial Cable Company, and one cannot help asking whether he will be merely a holder on behalf of this American concern. I know why the Colonial Secretary is not here to-night, but perhaps the Financial Secretary will endeavour to find out the facts before the Bill is finally passed, so that we may know whether this proposed cable company, which is to add another link, we all hope, to the chain of British communication round the world, is to be what the great majority of us would be delighted to see, an absolutely British run and British controlled and owned concern.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): Three hon. Members have raised points with which I will endeavour to deal. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is unavoidably absent, but on his behalf, and looking to the urgency of the Bill, I will give what information I possess. On the last point raised, the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain) has already asked several questions and received certain information, but he still entertains doubts as to the British character of the control. I undertake to place the additional points he has mentioned before my right hon. Friend and to get information regarding them from the Colonial Office. I am able to deal in rather greater detail with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer). As regards the three points asked by the hon. Member for Stafford, it is of course clear that the charge does not fall entirely upon the British Exchequer. Coming to the other two points which he raised as to the general finance, the position is that this Bill continues the allocation of the burden between this country and the various West Indian Colonies in more or less the form in which that burden was allocated under the agreement with the West India and Panama Telegraph Company. That agreement comes to an end on the 30th September of this year, hence the urgency of this Bill. So great is the necessity in this connection, that it was
necessary to anticipate to some extent the general allocation, and contracts had to be placed in order that the work might be undertaken and that there should be no interruption of telegraphic communication after the 30th September of the present year. Contracts were placed, and they work out at £304,000 as against £347,000 in the earlier estimate. The broad plan of the old agreement with the West Indian and Panama Telegraph Company is that this country is responsible for 80/263 of the financial side of the scheme.
In substance, the capital expenditure is about £400,000, and on the basis of 5 per cent. spread over the term of 30 years' repayment the total contribution from all the parties is £26,000 per annum, of which our portion is £7,900. It is anticipated that very soon the receipts will exceed the annual expenditure and that the net amount payable by this country will be about £5,500. Of course, as against that, the contribution which we are making now of £8,000, that is, our part of the £26,000 subsidy to the West India and Panama Telegraph Company, disappears. That fact must be taken into account when we mention the new liability. We can only hope for the success of a scheme of this kind in order that we may be relieved of burden, but, in any event, on the point that he has mentioned as regards the contributions of the other parties the hon. Member for Stafford, to use a popular phrase, has tumbled to the impossibility of inserting in this Bill the kind of Amendment which he had on the Paper, because as I understood him the effect of that would be to make the contribution obligatory. But I am afraid that that has not been the case in dealing with similar questions in the past.
There is another question on which my two hon. Friends combined on behalf of the island of Montserrat. That is strictly a Colonial Office matter, but it is known to hon. Members that Monserrat was not covered by the former or the existing arrangement. That is, it was not served by the existing Cable Board. I was asked, "Why do you not take steps to bring Montserrat within the scheme?" I say at once that if that had been possible without delay it would have been a point to recommend, but unfortunately, as hon. Members will appreciate, it would have
meant an alteration of the manner in which those 263rds of shares are allocated among the different parties, and after all possible steps had been taken towards this arrangement I am afraid that it would have involved, in the present position of this legislation, a rather dangerous delay. There is one fact which will go a long way to meet the case which the hon. Members very properly put. None of us desire to have any island of the group outside of communication, but it happens that the authorities in Montserrat themselves have taken steps towards the establishment of a wireless station, and the wireless station will be in communication with the centre in Barbadoes, and there is every reason to believe that, on the completion of the present schemes it will be in communication with the other Colonies in the group. Beyond that I could not go at the moment, but I think that all hon. Members will agree that that is a reassuring statement. Any other proposition advanced in the interests of this most interesting island—and I have heard with great respect my hon. Friends on that point—will of course be very carefully considered, because we all unite in the desire to see this part of the world linked up in the general scheme of communication. I hope that that explanation will meet the point which has been raised by hon. Members.

Clauses 4 (Application of profits), 5 (Payments, accounts and audit), and 6 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Preamble stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In view of the statement made by the Financial Secretrary to the Treasury, I do not propose the Amendment of which I had given notice, to include Montserrat.

Mr. REMER: For the same reason, I do not move the Amendment to the same effect which stands in my name.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PACIFIC CABLE BOARD BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [8th April], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I was in possession of the House for a few moments when this Bill was being debated some time ago. I wish to ask now for an explanation of Sub-section (3) of Clause 1. That Sub-section provides—
The Board, in the event of its undertaking work in connection with telegraphic communication in the West Indies, shall have power to provide and supply to the West Indies a news service similar to the news service supplied by telegraph companies at the commencement of this Act.
I think that that requires a certain amount of explanation. Here is a board which hitherto has been operating between Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and is going to undertake the provision of a news service to the West Indian Islands. There have been complaints in the West Indian Islands with regard to the news service. I only hope that the word "similar" in the Sub-section does not mean that it is going to be always the same as it has been in the past. The Pacific Cable Board is going to become now for the first time a news distributor, and I hope that it will do the work well. It is not a very easy thing to do to conduct an adequate news service of the kind required. You must always have regard to the requirements of the particular place which is served.
What the West Indies are particularly interested in is the price of sugar and a few articles of that kind, but they like also to know the principal political and sporting events that take place, and learn something of the more important of the world's news. They have been rather starved in that respect hitherto, and I only hope that when this board takes over these duties it will give an efficient service; but if it is to do so, I hope the Pacific Cable Board will employ a special personnel. It is not clear whether these new duties which we are placing upon the Pacific Cable Board are going to involve any reconstruction of its personnel or any addition to its personnel, and I am sure that in the event of its carrying out an entirely new kind of duty, namely, the provision of a news service, it will want certainly additions
to its staff and possibly additional directors. Do I understand that the terms of the Bill have been definitely agreed to by the various Dominion Governments concerned in the constitution of this board? Various questions have from time to time been raised by Dominions regarding this board. One would like to feel sure that they have had an opportunity of seeing the draft Bill, or of knowing its contents, and that they are satisfied that the Bill in every way meets their wishes.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will, if I can, meet the two points raised by the hon. Gentleman. As regards the second, the position is that the Government of Canada has agreed, and my information is that the Governments of Australia and New Zealand offer no objections. As to the other point, as the hon. Member knows, the existing company is under an obligation to provide daily news bulletins to the West Indies, and to that bulletin the West Indies attach very great importance. It includes some market quotations from New York, certain political and other information, and is obviously a thing which is in the public interest. I am not quite sure whether work of that kind could have been covered by the existing powers of the Pacific Cable Board, but, in any case, power is being taken under this Bill to enable them to continue the provision of that daily bulletin. Whether some change in personnel will be made I cannot say at the moment, but I can say that it is their desire that the service should be most efficiently provided, and I have no doubt they will take appropriate steps to that end.

Orders of the Day — WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY) (No. 2) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. WEBB: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is the third time that this subject has been discussed, but it would not be
respectful to refrain from describing the Bill again. It will be remembered that at the beginning of the War this House gave the Executive Government very large powers under what is known as the Defence of the Realm Act. Certainly at the time every one imagined that those powers were about as extensive as any that a draftsman could put into an Act. Upon those powers the Executive Government proceeded to act, first under the Premiership of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and then under that of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). The powers were exercised by way of prohibiting this and restricting that, and generally, in what was considered to be the interest of the community, acted in a way beyond the ordinary powers of an Executive Government. I do not think that very much objection was made to the exercise of those powers at the time. At the end of the War an Indemnity Bill was brought in and passed in the widest possible terms that the draftsmen knew how to employ, purporting to hold the Executive Government and all its officers harmless for any acts that they had committed in pursuance of their duty under the Defence of the Realm Act.
Notwithstanding those two Acts, it was discovered by ingenious lawyers that certain of the actions of the Executive Government were illegal and had not been covered by the wide words of the Defence of the Realm Act or by the still wider words of the Indemnity Act, 1920. Curiously enough, it was not the sweeping provisions of the Act which were objected to, or the sweeping prohibitions and restrictions which the Executive Government carried out, but in the course of the operation of those Acts it was found that sometimes universal prohibition or universal restriction was not necessary, and for the public convenience, as well as to the advantage of particular individuals, exceptions were made and permits were granted to individuals for the public advantage and at the request of the individuals concerned. It was assumed that power had been included for fees to be charged to the persons obtaining the advantage and fees were charged for the benefit of the community and to prevent those concerned making too much profit out of the privileges granted to them. Those payments were well known
in this House and were not objected to; they were, in fact, specifically endorsed by a Committee of this House. Nevertheless, when they were questioned in the Law Courts, the final Court, the House of Lords, held that the payments, though they had been voluntary and had been for the purpose of obtaining privileges, were not warranted by the words of the Statute. Of course, against that there was no appeal. The amount of the payment was about £18,000,000. Those payments or nearly all of them have been received by the Exchequer. Now, according to the judgment of the highest Court, there is no legal warrant for the Crown to retain that sum.
I do not want to mislead the House. I am not at all sure whether the people who paid that £18,000,000 could get it back, although it was not legally leviable. The Indemnity Act, 1920, fixed a date beyond which no claims could be made, and that date has expired. But as the Courts have held that these claims did not come within the scope of the Indemnity Act, so far as the money was concerned, it might at least be argued that they do not come within the Indemnity Act so far as the date for claims is concerned. When the first of these cases was being tried and was on its way to the highest tribunal, the right horn. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin), then President of the Board of Trade, definitely stated in this House the position of the Government of that date, namely, that if the judgment of the House of Lords went against the Crown the Government would bring in a Bill to legalise their procedure in cases of this nature during the period of control. That notice was given on 9th March, 1922. The final judgment was given on 29th June, 1922. The War Charges Validity Bill was introduced on 1st August, 1922. Unfortunately, it was not possible to carry that Bill through in the Session of 1922, and it was introduced again in the Session of 1923.
Two successive Governments have fathered the Bill, and therefore I am surprised to see objection taken to it, on its third introduction, on the ground or from the point of view that it is brought in by a Socialist Government. I do not acknowledge the paternity of the Bill. We are in this matter carrying out the decision of the Leader of the Opposition, and if congested business, or ill-fortune of one
sort or another, prevented the Bill being carried into law in 1922 and 1923, it is the duty of whatever Government is in power to put the Bill again before the House in order that the position of the Crown may be made regular in regard to this matter. I do not know that I need argue the question at any length, but I would point out that, although as large a sum as £18,000,000 was obtained by the Crown from the charges which have been declared invalid and although a considerable period has been allowed to elapse before the first Bill was introduced, yet as a matter of fact, only a very few of those who paid these charges have entered suits against the Crown. Some question arises about what are known as the milk charges, and it was with regard to them, in particular, that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, when Prime Minister, made that declaration that his Government would bring in a Bill to regularise the procedure in cases of this nature. Now when the present Government has the question before it, the issue has been raised as to whether or not the milk charges are to be included in the Bill.
We foresaw that there would be considerable discussion on this point, but we decided that it was only just that we should carry out the pledge which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to these specific charges among others, and we did not see that there was any valid distinction between these charges and the others. Consequently we included these milk charges in the first Bill and in the Money Resolution, but it will be remembered that in Committee on the Money Resolution an Amendment was moved by the late Attorney-General—the Attorney-General of the Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley, who had on behalf of that Government taken the decision to which I have referred The right hon. Gentleman's Attorney-General moved an Amendment to exclude milk charges from the Money Resolution, and that Amendment was carried by a small majority in the Committee. Therefore the Bill omits milk charges, but it includes all the other charges which have been made the subject of doubt, and for greater clearness and at the request of some of the people concerned, a Schedule is given describing these other charges so far as they can be
ascertained; but in view of the fact that so many Departments were concerned during the years of War and of control, and that those Departments have to a large extent disappeared and their archives are no longer available, it is impossible to say that these are all the charges.
9.0 P.M.
We are informed, and there is reason to believe, that the Schedule includes all those which were invalidated by the decision, with the exception of what are known as the milk charges, which are omitted from the Schedule in accordance with the vote of the Committee on the Money Resolution. I notice that exception has been taken to the Bill in terms which are somewhat surprising. It has been denounced as Socialist legislation, as I say, notwithstanding its past history, and I also notice that in connection with it references have been made to the Bill of Rights and to money being raised by the Crown without the authority of Parliament. I should like to point out that this is not an examination paper, in which people are invited to display their knowledge of Constitutional Law, and the suggestion that there is any parallel between the proceedings of the Crown under the Defence of the Realm Act and the Indemnity Act, on the one hand, and, on the other, the proceedings which were ended by the legislation prohibiting money being raised without the authority of Parliament, is, I think, a little strained. As a matter of fact, there is all the difference in the world, constitutionally, between raising money as Charles I attempted to raise ship money, deliberately, without going to Parliament, without asking Parliament at all and claiming that it could be done independently of Parliament, and the Act of officers of the Crown purporting and desiring to act, and thinking they were acting under a Statute of Parliament, but finding afterwards they were mistaken and that the Statute did not give them the power which they imagined it did.
If it be suggested that it was the act of a bureaucracy to claim this power, I should like to point out that this action was sanctioned bysuccessive Governments led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley, by the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, and by Mr. Bonar Law, and I cannot believe that these right hon. Gentlemen were infringing the Bill of Rights. I should like to point out also that these charges were repeatedly referred to in Parliament and mentioned in Debate as having been authorised, showing that the common opinion was that they were authorised. Although no specific authority was given, it is a little strange to suppose that they were being levied without the knowledge of Parliament and without passive consent, but as a matter of fact, the consent was rather more than passive, because a very important Select Committee of this House, an organ of the House itself, the Select Committee on National Expenditure, considered and reported on a number of these charges, including the largest of them all, what are known as the flour charges, which amount to £7,000,000 out of the £18,000,000. That was specifically considered by the Select Committee on National Expenditure and referred to without censure. Therefore, though we cannot say the House itself specifically authorised the charges, a Select Committee reporting to this House referred to them without any objection. A Report of that Select Committee referred specifically to fees or penalties exacted on goods imported contrary to the terms of the prohibition. It referred also to the fees imposed by the Cotton Control Board, and the Select Committee referred to these receipts as being useful subventions in aid of the expenditure which it had to consider, so I think I may say that, so far from the House of Commons not being aware of these charges, and so far from these charges being levied in any sort of defiance of Parliament, not only were they referred to in Debates in this House more than once, but actually a Select Committee of this House referred to them as existing, as valid, as authorised, and as furnishing a useful supplement to the revenue.
I do not think I need say more in order to warrant the Second Reading of this Bill. It is obviously desirable that the action of receiving these fees, licences, and other charges should be validated in order to avoid any doubts. It may be said that since that time one claimant has pursued his claim to the point of
judgment and has got a judgment against the Crown in the Court of first instance, and that it is, at a ay rate, unfair to deprive him of the fruits of his suit. I would like to say that it is significant that there is only one claimant who has got a judgment, which judgment is now subject to an appeal. But we are carrying out the pledge of the right hon. Member for Bewdley, who, after a claimant had obtained judgment, said the Government would bring in a Bill to legalise their procedure. That was very definite notice to everybody concerned that, if it was held by the Courts that these charges were not warranted by law, a Bill would be brought in to remedy that accidental and unforeseen omission. The Bill was introduced in August, 1922, and we are carrying out the decision of the right hon. Member for Bewdley. In one serious case, the Committee decided not to include it.

Mr. E. BROWN: Although the milk charges were taken out, is it a fact that there are some milk charges still left in?

Mr. WEBB: No. This Bill does not purport to validate any milk charges whatever, and it could not do so under the terms of the Money Resolution on which it is founded. Those have been left out.

Mr. LAMB: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what is going to happen now to these milk twopences? He tells us they are left out of the Schedule in performance of the first duty which the Government has, to uphold the decision of the House of Lords, but can he tell us what is going to happen to those twopences, and whether they are now going to be transferred to the producers or to be left in the hands of the distributor, who, during the hearing, admitted that he had no right to them?

Mr. WEBB: I am sorry I am not able to solve the conundrum put to me by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Lamb). The House decided that the milk charges were not to be validated, and the Government, therefore, will have to conform to the judgment of the House of Lords on the subject; but if the hon. Member suggests that there is any possibility that we can defeat the judgment of the House of Lords and hand the milk charges over to the producers, whoever they may be, I am
afraid it is very difficult to trace the milk. The Government can only abide by the judgment of the House of Lords.

Mr. LAMB: These twopences were collected on the authority of the Government, and surely, if they were collected wrongfully on the authority of the Government, it is the duty of the Government to see that they are returned to those from whom they were taken, namely, the farmers.

Mr. WEBB: That may be right, but I have yet to learn that the farmer paid the twopence. Whoever did pay them, there is no doubt some claim against the Government for these twopences, but I wish the hon. Member would not take me as assuming that it was the farmers who paid the twopences, as I am afraid I should have some difficulty in justifying that. Whatever was the judgment of the House of Lords, the Government must abide by it, the House, I suggest, must abide by it, and the farmer must abide by it. As no milk charges are contained in this Bill, I am sorry I am not in a position to give any more information about those milk charges. It has been suggested that there is something inequitable in validating the collection of these sums, but I can only say, speaking as an inexperienced Minister, that I have only had to follow the more experienced judgment and enlightenment of the Ministers who introduced the Bill before me, and I cannot go beyond that; but I would just observe that, out of all the thousands of people who paid these charges, very, very few have even asked to have them back at any time, and one prosecuted his suit to the point of judgment, but I do not want to dwell on the one, as there are one or two other cases, but they are a very small number.
It is significant that out of all these people who have paid these different charges, in view of the very large profits made out of the privileges that were obtained, all but a very few have determined to stick to their bargains and not to ask for their money back, but some have retained the profits and have asked for their money back. Of all the brewers who made considerable profits, one has asked for his money back, but none of the others, and so with all the other charges. It docs not seem to me quite equitable to treat these people otherwise
than all alike. Those who paid their charges and made their profits out of the exceptional privileges for which they paid, who adhered to their bargains and have not asked for their money back, are, in my view, entitled to be treated at least as generously as those who have taken the first opportunity of asking for the money back. Consequently, on the ground of equity, I consider that the Bill is justified in seeking to validate the charges along the lines suggested by the right hon. Member for Bewdley.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which seeks to validate the illegal and unconstitutional action of certain Government Departments in imposing and levying charges on His Majesty's subjects, without Parliamentary sanction, after the cessation of hostilities, and to deprive those who suffered these exactions of the redress which they have either secured fey judgments of the Courts or are seeking to secure by claims already lodged.
The right hon. Gentleman has moved the Second Reading of this Bill with an admirable detachment, on which I congratulate him. He plainly showed that his own heart is not in the Bill. It is to validate actions committed under the Prime Ministership of the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and it is to fulfil a pledge which was given by the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin). In no sense does the right hon. Gentleman himself take any responsibility for the Bill. I can only congratulate him on that course, and express my regret that he should feel it necessary to fulfil the promise of the right hon. Member for Bewdley. It is not very safe for him or the Government to take over Measures which come from the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Though the Bill was produced during the Premiership of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, they took care not to take it beyond the First Reading. The President of the Board of Trade has skated airily over the grave constitutional issues which are raised by this Bill, but I think the Amendments on the Order Paper will show to the House that we ought really to-night, not to pass this Bill as a matter
of course, but consider the principles which are involved in it, and the constitutional principles which are at stake. When the Financial Resolution was before the House, the President of the Board of Trade said:
It will be common ground that the Bill ought to be passed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1924; col. 150, Vol. 172.]
But the right hon. Gentleman must have realised by this time that there has been very far from general agreement in this House as to this Bill. It raises two constitutional points of the utmost importance. One is the protection of the subject against an executive which is overstepping its legal and constitutional powers, and the other is the sole power which is vested in this House for the levying of taxation upon the people. Both those principles have been set at nought in the actions with which we are dealing in this Bill, and it is for that reason that we cannot lightly pass this Bill so many years after the events to which they refer. I hope, therefore, the House to-night—although I am afraid the change of subject finds a rather wearied House—will be willing to go at some length into the subject-matter of this Bill.
The first point with which I want to deal is the financial point which the right hon. Gentleman made in connection with the Financial Resolution, and which he has repeated to-day. He said, on the 7th April, that unless the Bill is passed, the Treasury stand to lose £18,500,000. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman really thinks that anything like that sum is involved in the case which is now before the House. I believe him to be entirely in error in that statement. So far from there being any question of £18,500,000 at stake, I do not think the whole financial issue at the present moment comes to £500,000. I very much suspect that not more than £250,000 is now in doubt.

Mr. WEBB: I thought I made it clear that the total amount levied by the Crown was £18,500,000, but that a large part of it was probably barred by the Indemnity Act. I think I have already said that the amount which cannot be barred by the Act is something like £1,000,000.

Mr. JONES: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned £18,500,000, and I know
that that is in the minds of some Members, and is somewhat influencing their attitude in regard to this Bill. But, as a matter of fact, I believe—and I think the right hon. Gentleman believes—that the Indemnity Act itself has disposed of the greater part of the sums levied by the Departments, and that in regard to those which are not covered by the Indemnity Act, decisions given in the Courts of Law now have decided that no new cases can be entered. There was a case before the Courts on the 7th April, in which judgment was given by Mr. Justice Bailhache in regard to the case of the Bristol Channel steamers, who, under a Petition of Right, claimed £30,800 from the Crown, and the decision is exceedingly important. I am a little sorry the Attorney-General is not here to-night, because he was engaged in that case, and indeed argued the case for the Crown before the High Court, and won his case against my hon. Friend the Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt). The Attorney-General won the case, because, as the Judge said,
The Petition was not lodged within one year from the termination of the War, and is too late.
If the Attorney-General were here, I should like to ask him his opinion, and I think we are entitled to have his opinion. I am very sorry he is not here. These Amendments have been on the Paper some time, and I think it is a little hard on us that we have not the opinion of the learned Attorney-General on this point. But, in the absence of the Attorney-General, although I am not a lawyer, I am entitled to state the law on this matter. The position now is that no new case can be entered where a claim was not made before the 31st August, 1922, one year after the termination of the War. That I believe to be the outcome of this decision, and I believe it is the opinion of all the leading lawyers in the House. The amount of money at stake is set out in the White Paper which gives a list of the claims which have been entered against the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman says £1,000,000. It is not £1,000,000, because, putting aside the cases disposed of, the total remaining claims entered before the 31st August, 1922, do not amount to more than a little over £500,000, and some of those cases, to my knowledge, are not being pursued. My own conviction is that £250,000 would cover all the claims which are likely to
be established in the Courts of Law against the Crown.
Therefore, I submit that the financial case for this Bill, on which the right hon. Gentleman based the main part of his case, is disposed of, and there remain the constitutional and Parliamentary issues, which, I submit, are more important than the financial issue. But it is important to remember that the financial question is a small one, and what we have to consider is what it is right to do in regard to these particular cases. The right hon. Gentleman has given an accurate account, as I read it, of the origin of these cases. They arise from the Defence of the Realm Acts. Very wide and very vague powers were given to the Departments under the Defence of the Realm Acts—as the right hon. Gentleman says, powers so wide that no Department could have wanted them wider. Yet they went beyond the great powers given by Parliament. That in itself is a very serious thing, but that Ministers should strain the exceptional powers given to them in a time of stress is a grave offence; I cannot say otherwise. If the Ministers found it necessary to go beyond the limits imposed by Parliament they should have come to Parliament and said so. I admit that if this overstepping of the law had taken place in the stress of the War, when immediate action was necessary on the part of every man, no one would wish to press the case hardly against the Minister. I would not, at any rate. I am prepared to make the largest possible allowance for men acting under the stress of a great emergency, when they must do the best they can.
The cases which are under discussion to-night did not arise during hostilities. It is true they are during the War in the technical sense, because the War did not officially terminate until August, 1921, but they took place in 1919. The War cases are disposed of by the Act of Indemnity. That prevents new cases being taken up. The £7,000,000 on the question of flour on which the right hon. Gentleman lays such stress is disposed of by the Act of Indemnity. The Act of Indemnity was not passed to validate all the acts done during the War or in the War. The right hon. Gentleman, I venture to think, gave a somewhat coloured account of the way in which the Act of Indemnity was passed. He spoke as if these cases had escaped
notice when the Act of Indemnity was passed. So far from that being the case, a Clause was put in to allow cases where a contract had been entered into to be brought forward if it was done before a certain day. So far from it being intended to validate all these cases, the Act of Indemnity, I suggest, left out these cases and left the Courts to decide them if the claimants chose to bring them before the Courts. I press on the right hon. Gentleman that the cases we are dealing with are not cases that occurred during the War, but cases that occurred after hostilities had ceased, and that they were illegal and unconstitutional on his own admission. I suggest that the Ministers concerned knew they were acting contrary to the law. There were protests. It is not the case, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, that in every instance these imposts and these licences were gladly paid. On the contrary, there were many protests.
There is the case of the Wiltshire Dairy Company, which was decided by the House of Lords. That was not a willing payment. On the contrary, they argued strongly against it. They told the Food Controller that he was acting outside the Constitution. I suggest that the proper course in 1919, when these charges were being made, and when protests were being made against them, was for the Ministers and the Departments concerned to put their case before the House of Commons. If they had proved the necessity of their case, the House of Commons would not have been slow to respond to an appeal. If Ministers—and this is the constitutional point I wish to press upon the House—are to be free to go beyond the powers entrusted to them by Parliament, to interfere and levy taxes on their own authority, then the liberty of the subject is gravely imperilled. This is 1924. Much has happened since 1919 and the Indemnity Act of 1920. The aggrieved parties have gone quite properly to the Courts of Law. They have sought redress and, in some cases, obtained it; in others they are only waiting the decision of test cases to press their claims. Now we are asked—and this is where I think the Government are in the wrong—to step in and intervene in the middle of the hearing of a case when claimants have taken preliminary steps
and are now before the Courts. We are to step in and say, "You have no business to go to Courts of law. We are settling this matter in Parliament, and we propose not to allow your cases to be heard any further." It seems to me most unjust. Ministers and Departments knowingly broke the law. The subject seeks redress where the subject can always get redress, that is, in the Courts of law. Now we are asked to deprive them of the judgment given by the highest Courts in the land and to interfere. I want to point out to the Government and to the House that the liberty of the people of this country consists in the certainty that the law will protect them against illegal action. If a man is put in prison by a too zealous Home Secretary or some official in the public interest, as he thinks, that is no defence for the official. Shall the House of Commons step in under a habeus corpus case and say, "You shall not have the benefit of this Act, because the Minister has acted well and in the public interest," and when a Minister has laid taxes on the subject contrary to the whole history of this House and this country, shall we step in and say, "Well, you taxed the subject, but he is a poor creature, and he is too rich anyway, therefore it is all right"? That is not the way for Parliament to act. That is no fancy grievance.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was no analogy to-day between the time of the Petition of Right and the present day. The analogy is not made by those who put the Amendment on the Paper. This case was won in the Court of Appeal by a lawyer who, when asked what cases he relied upon, said "The Bill of Rights." That was the case which has decided this case in the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords, and I would like the right hon. Gentleman and the House to hear some words of Lord Justice Scrutton which were read during the Debate on the Financial Resolution:
The ground of this appeal (the Wiltshire Dairy case) is that to demand the sum in question is levying money for the use of the Crown without grant of Parliament contrary to the provision of the Bill of Rights.
He goes on to say—and I commend this passage to the right hon. Gentleman who dismisses these actions of the Executive and these transgressions of the Executive so readily—I am not sure it may not be
necessary at the same time to curb the right hon. Gentleman; I can imagine him doing many things which are not sanctioned by the powers conferred by Parliament on the Board of Trade:
It is true that the fear in 1689 was that the King by his prerogative would claim this money. But excessive claims by the Executive Government without grant of Parliament are at the present time quite as dangerous and require as careful consideration and restriction from the Courts of Justice.
These are not the words of Members of this House, but of the learned judge in a court of law, who decided in favour of the claimant on the ground that has been given. We are the guardians of the rights and liberties of the people, and we should be false to our trust if by retrospective legislation of this kind we deprived the subject of the only safeguard he has against a wrongful usurpation of power by the executive. It is not a fanciful danger. There is every tendency to set aside the authority of Parliament, to go outside Parliament. The authority of Parliament in other countries is being undermined, and the authority of this Parliament will be undermined if it is thought that there is no one to watch over the liberties and the rights of the people of this country, especially in saving Ministers who have exceeded their powers from the corresponding punishment and penalties. Really no case has been put forward for the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has proved no necessity for it whatever. I appeal to the House, and to the Government, not to give this Bill its Second Reading, and that the judgment which has been given in the Courts should be allowed to stand. I claim that it is wrong that we should step in between the claimants who are bringing forward claims and the decisions of the Court. I submit that the nation ought to be able to rest secure in the knowledge that the law is supreme; that Parliament will not interfere to protect the Minister who has exceeded his powers, or to deprive the humblest subject of the Empire of that redress which is provided by law for any wrong that he may suffer.

Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) that any Bill which is retrospective in its character requires a very strong case
to be made out in its favour before passing this House. But I think the difficulty in connection with this particular Bill is this. Morally I do not think that any claimant has a case against the Government Departments; that matter I propose in a little while to go into. If we were merely deciding on the general equity of the case between these people who obtained these licenses and paid for them, and the Government—and by the Government in this connection we really mean the taxpayer—because the question at once arises: if the Bill does not go through, who will pay? They would not get the money from the right hon. Gentleman. They would not even get it from the generous friends of Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They would get it from the taxpayer. If the matter is right morally, we shall have to give it, whatever it costs. In a moment I will deal with the moral side of these claims. I find myself in entire agreement with the language used, both by the late Lord Chancellor and by Lord Buckmaster, in giving judgment. We cannot rest our decision merely on the general equity of the case; we have got to go further, and see whatever the general equity may be, whether we have to be morally wrong or immorally generous to the claimants, looking to the future. That is the real difficulty which presents itself in this case.
Let me take the general morality, If what was done was wrong, there was a singular unanimity in the wrongdoing. We are all participators in this crime, except those comparatively few hon. Members who did not then happen to be in the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) was a criminal. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was a criminal. The leaders of the party opposite were criminals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, the Labour party were criminals. The Lord Privy Seal made Orders. A very distinguished Liberal, the late Lord Rhondda, made these Orders for the Government. Every Minister, irrespective of class, complexion or creed, appears to have made Orders. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said that we really ought not to take any action in this matter because the period of gestation
has been so long. The right hon. Gentleman the present President of the Board of Trade may prove a more successful accoucheur than his predecessors. But the delay in passing this Bill really does not at all improve the morality of the claim made by these claimants. I do not think it will be disputed on moral grounds what is the position in all these cases. They all stand together.

Mr. L. JONES: There was one case that I had in mind where one ship was sold by a firm, and they bargained for a new ship, and paid over a sum of money to the Government. They are now in liquidation. If they had that money it would go to their creditors.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am going to deal with that case. The position is that there is no question that the prohibitions were entirely legal. The prohibitions were fully legal and sanctioned by this House. It was quite illegal to sell ships without permission or to sell more beer to munition workers than to the right hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill. It was quite illegal to sell steel in foreign markets without permission. The first point I wish to establish is that it was not the Government forcing people to do an illegal thing or successive Governments doing illegal acts. What they did in the way of prohibition was legal and authorised by this House. In the second place, it was perfectly legal for the Government to give licences to people to export or deal in the way which was authorised by the licences. I think the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that anybody at the time thought it was illegal, because it would have been very easy, if there had been any question of illegality, for the Government of the day to have come to this House at the time to put it right.

Sir K. WOOD: Legal opinions on this question were submitted by various well-known counsel, distinctly pointing out the illegality of the course being pursued by the Government.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Of course, the Governments took the opinion of their Law Officers and got the best legal opinion they could, and they were bound to do that. There was no doubt that during the
War the House of Commons would undoubtedly do what any Government asked it to do. If there had been any doubt in the minds of successive Governments, they would certainly have come to this House to obtain the necessary permission. Let hon. Members observe that there was no question of keeping these things secret from the House. Hon. Members were fully aware of what was being done. These things were being done with extreme publicity. They figured in our Debates, and when the Minister of Munitions brought his Estimates forward, the policy of these licences was stated to the House and he stated exactly the policy he was pursuing.
I remember that the most important case that of the licenses for the use of flour for other than bread purposes formed the subject of a careful investigation by the-National Expenditure Committee. All those who were Members of any previous Parliament will remember the work of the Committee on National Expenditure which was presided over by the greatest purist in these matters that ever sat in this House, Lord Banbury, and if any irregularity could escape the lynx eye of Lord Banbury, it must have been very deeply concealed. When this matter came before the Committee on National Expenditure, not only did Lord Banbury pass these things as being perfectly proper, but he drew the attention of the Minister of Food, not to the fact that the Minister was making illegal charges, but to the fact that they were not charging enough. Lord Banbury gave it as his advice to the House, in the Report of the Committee, that in their opinion the charges which were being made were perfectly right and that the Minister of Food ought to increase the charges in order that no part of the public money which was being voted for the bread subsidy should find its way into the pockets of those who were making articles of luxury.
Therefore it is not a case of this House in its successive Sessions being at all ignorant of the policy that was being pursued. As a matter of fact, a number of these licences were issued by arrangement with the trades themselves, and in some cases upon the suggestions made by the trade. Take the case of brewing. One such case figures in this list. What happened was that the brewers were licensed throughout the country to pro-
duce a certain amount of beer, and very bad beer it was. They were permitted to produce only a certain weak ration of email beer proportionate to the amount they used to brew before the War. The munition workers, who required particular assistance in this matter, and who had not the advantage of the rum ration, felt that they could not produce an adequate amount of munitions unless they had some further fortification in the matter of liquor, and so it was decided by a very wise Minister of Munitions that munition workers should have an extra allowance of beer. It was found impossible for the brewers all over the country to deal with this question, and it was agreed that the brewers whose breweries were close to the munition districts should make extra quantities. Of course, they made extra profits, and it was resolved that they should be charged a fee for doing it.
The same thing happened in the case of ships. It was illegal to sell ships. I would remind the House that this autocratic arrangement was made, not by civil servants or by Ministers of the Crown of the ordinary sort, but by the Ministry of Shipping, presided over by Lord Maclay, and by the Shipping Committee in the Ministry of Shipping, and that was the reason why it was run so extraordinarily well. It was illegal to sell ships without leave, subsequently nearly all shippers made great losses. There is nothing remarkable in the fact that one company has made large losses and gone into liquidation. The people who had got new ships were not allowed to sell them at all, and even the people who lost ships had to invest their money in building new ships. The only people who were allowed to sell ships were those who possessed very old ships.
It occurred to Lord Maclay and his colleagues that it would have been very unfair to bind by these strict Regulations those shipowners who happened to have new and up-to-date ships and at the same time give far more generous treatment to those who possessed very old ships. Therefore, where the ship was very old—I do not think they allowed a sale unless the ship was over 25 years old—they said that in that case the owners might sell on licence, but must pay a fee for being allowed to do so. In no case was that fee more than a comparatively small per-
centage—some 10 or 15 per cent. I think—not of the price, but of the profit which these people make on the transaction. I know that that is so, because I myself had at one time, and all my predecessors had, to go through these cases. I wanted to be sure about the morality as well as about the constitutional position, and I went through case after case. I found cases where ships had been bought for £100,000 and were being sold, six or nine months afterwards, at two or three times that price, and the fee that was paid was only some 15 or 25 per cent., while, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel) pertinently reminds mo, in the meantime they were earning considerable money on their freights. I know, and I think other Members of the House know, what very candid expressions of opinion have been given on this matter by eminent shipowners who have been in this House.
I would observe, further, that none of these people need have come forward for licences. If they thought they could do better, business by keeping and running the ships, they were perfectly at liberty to hold them. When they thought—and they were quite right—that it was good business for them to sell those ships at an enormous profit, they were charged a small fee for the privilege. In all these cases it can hardly be said that there is any question of morality. In every single case the people who applied for licences applied for them because it was good business for them at the time to do so. If this were merely a transaction between one company and another company or between one individual and another individual, it would never have been challenged for a single moment. Therefore, on the general morality of these cases, I submit to the House that no claim can be founded for a refund. The matter is made still more plain by the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is only a comparatively few people who have made these claims. Licences were granted to the tune of £18,000,000, but only in a comparatively few cases have people come forward and asked to be allowed to go back on their bargain. I think that is the clearest proof that people realise that, if you are dealing simply with the equity of the case, a fair bargain has been made and they ought to stand by it. The right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Camborne said, and he comes to a legal point here, that there is not £18,000,000 in question. I must quite frankly agree with one thing that he said. I am rather sorry that the Attorney-General is not in his place because—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have already indicated that the Attorney-General has been obliged to go home because he is ill.

10.0 P.M.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: This is the first time I have heard that. I had not the least idea of it. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Had I known it, I, of course, should not have said that, but it was a very natural request to make that, on a difficult legal question of this kind, the Attorney-General should be here. I, certainly, as a mere ex-lawyer, am not prepared to express an opinion on the very intricate legal question of whether to-day new claims could be made, or whether the actual liability of the Government is limited to the claims which are set forth in the White Paper. It may be that the operation of the Indemnity Act, coupled with some other provision, has stopped new claims. I dare say hon. and learned Gentlemen will express an opinion on that, but could the House ever stand on that technical position? I do not think it could for a moment. What has happened? There are some people who have pressed forward their claims. There has been one judgment, and others have started proceedings. But there is an enormous number of other people who have withheld their claims, because they were perfectly prepared to stand by their bargain, or because they were told by successive Governments that legislation was going to be introduced to deal with their cases. I am sure that any Member of this House, whether he be a Minister, an ex-Minister, or a private Member, will bear me out that, if you once lay it down that all those claimants who have claims now pending are to rank for payment, you really would not be able to maintain the position that you could not pay the other people who have not made claims. I can see in every case that whatever Government was in power would be appealed to, and people would say, "You allowed the claim in this case,
which is absolutely on all fours with another case. Why will you not pay out in the other case?"
I do not believe that, in justice, the Government would be able to stand on that ground, or, indeed, that they would wish to do so, even if their legal position would admit of it. We have all known in this House of many oases where once a precedent of that sort has been created, and the Government, who have to be just in these matters and to treat everyone alike, have had to accept the same position for every claimant. That would mean that you could not stand on the technical legality of the claims which are in, but would have to treat them all alike, and that, therefore, you would have to pay out £18,000,000 of the taxpayers' money, which has to be raised by taxation somehow, in order to pay an additional profit to a large number of people, all of whom came voluntarily into this transaction, and were perfectly satisfied with their bargain at the time. As far as the morality of the case goes, I am certain that no case can be made out on that. Now one comes to the much more difficult case of constitutional precedent, and what I think this House ought to decide now is whether there is such a conflict between the morality of the case and the possibility of setting a dangerous precedent that they ought to refuse to proceed with this Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman has—not of his own volition, I must admit—taken what I think is the right action. He had to take it. The case which went to the House of Lords, and in which a final decision was given before any legislation was announced, and cases which stand on all fours with it, are excluded from this Bill. I do not defend that for a moment on the ground of the morality of the claim. I defend it entirely on the constitutional ground that, a judgment has been given by the House of Lords in an action begun before notification had been given of this legislation. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) felt bound to stand by that, and we felt bound to stand by it also, purely on constitutional grounds. There is another case which, as the President of the Board of Trade admitted, is more difficult, and that is the case where a judgment has been given in a
Court of first instance. Far less serious in itself than a judgment of the final Tribunal in the House of Lords; but he is not right in saying that in that matter he stands exactly in the same position as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was in when he was President of the Board of Trade, and as I, when President of the Board of Trade, was in. That is not so, because judgment had not been given in these cases at that time.

Mr. WEBB: Yes.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No certainly not. We did not have judgment. I am sure I am right about this, because I well remember the form in which our legislation was introduced in the last Parliament. It was "Notwithstanding any judgment given after the date of the introduction of the Bill."

Mr. WEBB: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? He is perfectly right if he says "introduction." The Bill was introduced on the 1st August, 1922; judgment was given on 29th June, 1922. What I quoted was the declaration of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) on 9th March, 1922, that judgment had been given, not only in the first Court, but in the Court of Appeal. After judgment had been given, the right hon. Member for Bewdley said that even if the judgment of the House of Lords was against the Crown the Government would bring in a Bill. The point is not very material. I admit the Bill was not brought in till the 1st August.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the judgment of the House of Lords in the Wilts case. That is out of the way now, because the right hon. Gentleman has had to except the judgment which was given in the House of Lords. I am dealing with the instance, which I understand he slurred over rather quickly, of the judgment given in the Brocklebank case, and which was given in the Court of First Instance That judgment was given after the introduction of our Bill in the last Parliament, but before the introduction of the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. Therefore, as regards that judgment, he does not stand in the same position as my right hon. Friend. But he is right in saying that when we introduced our Bill in the last Parliament we safeguarded the judgment which had
been given. We did, however, put in clearly that, notwithstanding any judgment which might be given after the introduction of our Bill, we were giving notice in that Bill to everybody who might have actions pending that they proceeded with those actions at their own peril. One does not do a thing like that without very high legal advice. The right hon. Gentleman has in view the carrying on of that arrangement. On the whole—though this matter will no doubt be considered more fully in Committee—I am inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman is right; that the full notice was given to those plaintiffs, the merits of whose case are entirely non-existent. I have dealt with those already. We are not really creating any serious constitutional precedent by saying to people, who went on with their litigation in the teeth of the notice given by the Government, that legislation would be introduced to set aside the judgment. Be it observed, that to deal with that case, you have got to deal with all the other cases that stand on all fours with it. There were many other cases which were held back in order to see what would happen. There are many others you will have to deal with, which were held back because the people waited to see whether you were going to bring in legislation. You have got to deal with them. This point will have to be dealt with in Committee. I would make this plain here and now—and it would hp satisfactory if we could have a firm assurance on it from the right hon. Gentleman—that in all cases where litigation has been begun and carried to any stage, whatever may be the expense, the Government should give a complete indemnity against all costs. I do not mean taxed costs, but that they will repay to every single claimant who has taken action the full costs incurred. If the right hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking of that kind, it will be easier to come to a decision when the Bill gets into Committee.

Mr. WEBB: I can give, on behalf of the Government, the fullest possible undertaking on the lines he has indicated with regard to the costs.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am very glad to hear it, because
that removes any question of unequal dealing. If I might summarise, I would say the judgment of the Lords is maintained. That is right. On the morality and equity of the ease, I am sure the House need be under no illusion in this matter, and as regards what is the one serious point, of creating a difficult constitutional precedent, in view of the fact that this one judgment, which still exists, was given after full notice of the Bill of last Session, I think the House, in spite of a natural repugnance, will, on the whole, be doing the greatest justice in the case by giving the Bill a Second reading.

Mr. JOWITT: I agree with some of the observations which the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has put before the House, but I differ from him in regarding this simply and solely as a question of morality. I do not feel qualified to express an opinion on morality in connection with a shipping matter at any rate. I do, however, feel inclined to take my stand on the single question of principle. Having said that, might I say also that I am rather glad to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) has said that eminent political leaders in all parts of the House are criminals. For my part, if it be true that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Labour Party are all equally guilty, then, surely I say to myself, this is an occasion on which a private Member can exercise his own judgment. Exercising my own judgment, I come to the conclusion that it is a pure farce to talk about morality when what you are proposing to do is to say that, under the existing law, any person who had a legal right, who went to the Courts and got rights to which he was entitled, and obtained judgment in his favour, is deprived of the judgment which he has obtained. To do it under the guise of sticking to principles of morality seems to me the greatest nonsense.

Sir K. WOOD: He is to get his costs.

Mr. JOWITT: Yes, that is a great consolation. The right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Hendon says there is no logical ground on which you can differentiate between those who have got judgment and those who have not. I beg to differ from him. The Indemnity Act, 1920, provided that all claims must be brought within twelve months of the legal end of the War, namely, before the 31st August, 1922. If a person slept, and did not trouble to take his action in the proper time, but let that day go past, then he is too late. What harm is there in this House saying that if a man has not brought his action by that date he loses his rights? It is saying nothing new. We are merely carrying out principles of the law laid down by the Indemnity Act. I believe the number of cases which can now be brought is very small. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am sure he will accept this from me in the absence of the Attorney-General, for he and I litigated this point. It is the fact that it has been decided by His Majesty's Judges that a person who did not bring his claim at the appropriate time, namely, before 31st August, 1922, is now too late, and he cannot bring it. Therefore the only claims you have to consider at present are claims which were lodged before that date. They are very few in number, as far as I know, something like half a dozen, not, I believe, more—the Brocklebank case and two or three cases which have been awaiting the result of the Brocklebank case. You are not dealing here with a case of £18,000,000 or anything like it. You are dealing with a comparatively small sum, but you are dealing with a great principle. It seems to me it is true that the taxpayer, be the sum large or small, has to foot the bill. I agree with that and I regret it. It is equally true that many shipowners during the War made very large sums of money which might, perhaps, have been more profitably used elsewhere. I am not concerned to deny that. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says all these shipowners paid this imposition without complaint. To my certain knowledge many of the shipowners who paid this tax made the most grievous complaint and said, in accordance with advice which they received at the time, that the charge was illegal. It is not a fact that they agreed to pay.
However that may be, surely we can all afford now to adopt this simple stand-
point. We have got to distinguish between the legislative functions and the functions of the Judicature. It surely will be a most disastrous thing for the legislation of this country if this habit becomes prevalent, as there is every indication that it is going to become. Tomorrow night we are going to have the same point with regard to Income Tax, on which the Government are seeking to get rid of a decision which has recently been given in the House of Lords. We had it in the last Session of Parliament with regard to landlords and their tenants. I, at any rate, took exactly the same standpoint then that I take now. I believe it is fundamentally wrong, when the law has been declared, that this House should come ex post facto, after the judgment has been obtained, be it a judgment of the Court of First Instance or the House of Lords I care not, and alter the existing law to the prejudice of the person who has got his judgment. I believe, even at the cost of perhaps £250,000 or whatever it may be, if we have this principle quite clearly enshrined and we teach the executive of the day that this House will not lend itself to this proceeding we shall have acquired an experience and learned a lesson which will be quite worth the £250,000 we had to pay for it. I shall throughout oppose this retrospective legislation from whatever quarter it may be brought forward. I believe it is fundamentally wrong and bad, and I hope the House will not be led astray by thinking that merely by giving a person an indemnity as to his costs you can properly compensate him for depriving him of the fruits of the judgment which he has won. He has incurred the risk, he has gone on and won his judgment, and if we talk about morality it would be grossly immoral to take away the fruits of his judgment.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I associate myself fully with the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I listened with some degree of curiosity to see how the late President of the Board of Trade would be able to make good the case, which I am sure would be a very different argument if he were differently situated, but he is up to his neck in it. It was he who was responsible for the proposed legislation. I sympathise with him because he and his
successor have proved again and again how completely Ministers are in the hands of the permanent civil servants. Of course, it is loyalty to the heads of the Department that they should endeavour to get them out of the mess into which they have got themselves. It is all very well to say that Lord Maclay has been an ideal shipping controller, but he is no more entitled to justice than the humblest person. I listened to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade in introducing this matter, and, I thought, "Here is a political Pilate washing his hands of this Measure because he is bound to accept it as that of his predecessor." He dwelt at very great length upon the fact that the Leader of the Opposition had intimated, when he was at the Board of Trade, that if the House of Lords decided in favour of the dairies, he would introduce legislation to nullify that decision. He took that flattering unction to his soul as justification for supporting legislation of a retrospective character. It was his own people who were almost incoherent with rage at the idea of legislation being retrospective in regard to the position of Scottish land, and the same with regard to the deportation of Irishmen. This sort of thing makes one feel that there is great insincerity in public life.
The vital question which this Bill raises has given rise to enormous troubles in the past and it ought, therefore, not be lightly put aside. It is suggested that there is no connection between this trouble and the troubles of the 17th century. The President of the Board of Trade, indeed, made reference to what he called the absurdity of suggesting that this has any relation to the question of the fight in the 17th century over the Bill of Rights. He may be in a position to treat it facetiously, but some of us look upon it as a very serious matter. When hon. Members find an active Member of the Liberal party, like the hon. Member who has just spoken, and myself, who is popularly supposed to be a most fossilised Member of the Conservative party, in agreement, they may be perfectly sure that there is something wrong. The troubles which involved us in that prolonged war in the 17th century were largely as to whether or not the monarch should be at liberty to place imposts upon the people without the consent of Parliament. The same question arose at the
end of the century. The question is the same to-day, only instead of having a monarch to attack we have the permanent bureaucrat.
When I heard the President of the Board of Trade talk about these payments having been made voluntarily and gladly, and that was also the burden of the speech of the late President of the Board of Trade, I may say that most of us know, just as it is in the personal knowledge of the last speaker, that the payments were made under protests of a most vigorous kind. They were imposed just as much against the will of the payers as were the benevolences that were extorted by Empsom and Dudley for the benefit of Henry VII. The President of the Board of Trade complained that there was only one decision of the Court of first instance, and he looked upon that as a very remarkable thing. But it is not so remarkable when we remember that every conceivable objection has been raised and every conceivable delay has been put in the way of litigants by the Home Office, the Board of Trade and the Attorney-General. I hold in my hand a correspondence which commenced on the 7th July, 1922, when a Petition of Right was sent to the Home Office with a request that they would endorse it and let right be done, and the petition has not yet been acceded to.

Mr. MARSH: That is the rapidity of your Government.

Sir H. NIELD: It is not, it is the delay on the part of the officials. It applies to the Departments of all Home Secretaries and Presidents of the Board of Trade, and it shows a collusive arrangement on the part of the officials to try to prevent anything being done.

Mr. PERRY: On a point of Order. Is it not out of order for an hon. Member to attack permanent officials?

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I think that the hon. and learned Member ought to confine his attacks to the Ministers who are responsible for this Bill.

Sir H. NIELD: I bow to your ruling. The fact remains that causes have been marked out of the list to suit the convenience of the Attorney-General, and every obstacle has been put in the way I may refer briefly to one case in which
the name has not been given so far, that is the Marshall Steamship Company. That company decided to sell an old boat and applied for a licence. The purchase price was £134,000. They were compelled first to pay a sum of £20,000 for that licence, and to submit to enter into a new contract to buy a new vessel, and though they had an old German tug-boat—this was after the War had concluded—which they desired to purchase they were not-allowed to make that purchase, because it was said that it was necessary to give employment in the shipyards. At that time the boilermakers' strike was on, and the shipyards were mostly idle, and it was impossible for them to get the new ship built.

Mr. EGAN: The hon. Member says "boilermakers' strike." It was not a strike.

Sir H. NIELD: I know that it is like waving a red rag before a bull to talk to some Members about a strike which may conceivably be turned into a lockout. Whichever it was, there was a paralysis in the trade, and that paralysis prevented shipping being built. The Shipping Controller knew that that was the condition of things, and the result was that this unfortunate company, having deposited £15,000 under the contract, had to forfeit that deposit and to pay another £20,000 to get out of a contract which could never be performed, but the conditions of which prevented them from having the right to get damages, so that they had a dead loss of £55,000 upon a ship which they had Fold for £134,000. That is a company which is in liquidation, and very little wonder that it is in liquidation. They brought their action; they gave notice well before the prescribed time. They served a high official of the Board of Trade, I think the Secretary. The Board of Trade took the objection that the writ was improperly served. The action went to trial, and the objection raised by the Board of Trade was pretty severely commented upon by Lord Justice Scrutton. Although the writ was set aside, some strong observations were made upon the attitude of the officials. That action is still pending, although it was months ago that the hearing took place. A Petition of Right has been presented, and is still pending. I hold in my hand a return,
dated June, 1923. It is typewritten, and is a return showing all claims made on any Government Department on or before 1st August, 1922, which would be affected by the "War Charges Validity Bill if approved by Parliament. There are five claims, and five only:
6th July, 1921, Foster Hain and Read, £13,500, War Compensation Court.
26th July, 1921, Mercantile Steamship Company, Limited, War Compensation Court, £12,600.
7th February, 1922, Marshall Steamship Company, Limited, £20,000, War Compensation Court.
July, 1922, Brocklebanks, Limited. £34,920, Petition of Right.
The total of these five claims, which are said to have been all that were received up to the date of the return in June, 1923, is not more than £81,020. I cannot understand where the right hon. Gentleman gets his information that there would be upwards of £1,000,000 due by the Treasury if this Bill were not passed. I complain that this is a very mischievous Bill. It is a Bill which, in fact, is interfering with the privileges of Parliament. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Lord Banbury was a keen politician and a purist and yet gave notice to this House as Chairman of the National Expenditure Committee. That is the merest special pleading. The right of Parliament is to sanction these charges before they are made, and it does not do for any eminent gentleman, sitting as Chairman of a Committee of this House, to make observations, even in a Report to this House, to get rid of the ancient privilege of this House of originating taxation. It is all very well to come afterwards and ask us, as has been done again and again, to whitewash and justify by retrospective legislation. It is a mistaken policy, after all, and a most mischievous precedent, and I hope that this Bill may be rejected, if only to show the Government that they ought not, especially as they claim to be a Democratic Government, to put their hand to proceedings under a Bill of this sort.
My right hon. Friend talked about morality. He said "You would be bound to admit other claims" Nothing of the sort. There are such things as Statutes of Limitation, which define the time within which claims can be made.
This Indemnity Act is another kind of statutory limitation. It gave notice to the whole world that after the expiration of a year from the conclusion of the War claims would be barred. There is no justification for asking this House to assume that if we reject this Bill, we must of necessity admit every claim, even claims which have not yet been formulated. My right hon. Friend spoke of having been a law student, and he will remember that in his early days of law examinations he was taught the equity axiom that the law assists the watchful and not to the sleeping, and the watchful in this case are those who make claims while the sleeping are those who have lain by, hoping to profit by others or who are not prepared to risk money in legal proceedings.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is another axiom that he who comes to equity should come with clean hands.

Sir H. NIELD: I think mine is more ancient than the other. At any rate, I am sure that equity would not have interfered where there was a legal remedy and the law is perfectly clear. There is no question of a court of equity being disposed to admit claims which by law are barred. If that were the case we should have the Chancery Division deluged with actions otherwise statute-barred. As a matter of fact, equity always follows the law. I think between us we are giving the House some enlightenment. There is, however, no justification for the plea to which I have referred. We have to face the fact that a cardinal principle of taxation has been infringed again and again, not during the War but long after the War, and it has been done without reference to the authority of Parliament. I hope the House will not be misled by the various arguments which have been put forward, but will resolutely assert itself and its traditions.

Major MOULTON: I desire to rein-force the appeals which have been made to the House to consider that it has a very grave duty in this matter. I could not put the case against retrospective legislation more eloquently than the present Prime Minister and various other Members of the Government have put it. One of the statements of the Prime Minister was that it was not to be resorted to except in the most urgent cases.
Can it be said that this is one of the most urgent cases? I can imagine the possibility, for instance, of a building having been put up during the War, on land in the title to which there was some flaw, but I am certain that if it was sought to put such a matter right it would be done on terms giving just compensation for any injury which might have been caused. What is the necessity here? It is simply the necessity of putting a certain amount of money into the Exchequer and it is not a very large sum but only somewhere about a quarter to half a million. Is it wise in order to do that, to give away the great principle that Parliament has to hold the balance fairly? I ask the House to say that care in the matter of restrospective legislation is doubly necessary when the State is one of the parties to the dispute. Parliament is making itself the judge of its own case. We have a White Paper stating that there is a claim for a quarter of a million which has no moral justification. Are we to make ourselves the judges? What opportunity is given to the person who is claiming the quarter of a million?
It is utterly unworthy of the traditions of this House and of British history that we should pass a Bill of this kind dismissing claim after claim without an opportunity of hearing what is to be said on the other side. All we know is that in certain cases where they have come before the Courts these claims have been sustained, and then we are told that it is only a Court of first instance. I must say that to me it is quite a new idea that there is any difference in the value of a judgment of a Court of first instance or of the House of Lords. In regard to another argument of the President of the Board of Trade, I would refer him to a shipping case where the Court said that the only ground on which the claimants could recover was that the money had been paid under protest. Payment was made not with the intention of giving up a right, but under necessity, with the intention of reserving a right to dispute the legality of the change. If the President of the Board of Trade is right in his contention, there is no need to go behind the judgment at all, and if he is wrong, I say there is no case to ask the House to pass special legislation.

Mr. NESBITT: I desire to associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), and the further arguments which were submitted to the House by the hon. and learned Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt). I was not impressed, any more than was the hon. and learned Member for the Hartlepools, with the arguments put before the House by the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame), who devoted a great part of his speech to the moral side of this matter. We shall be on very dangerous ground if we are swayed either by the morality of this matter or by sympathy for the subject. I feel very clearly that the moment this House departs from the wise practice, which has hitherto prevailed in matters of this kind, of not embarking, whether on grounds of morality or on grounds of sympathy, upon legislation which is going to set aside decisions of the Courts, we shall get into a dangerous situation, but let me say one word on the moral side of the matter. I should feel much more sympathy with the moral aspect if the Bill did not—I know the House decided it—exempt the milk judgment. I cannot see the moral point of view which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon rather emphasised, because it seems to me that if you are going to exempt the milk people, you have got in the thin end of the wedge on any moral grounds, and you will have to exempt any number of other people.
The ground on which I hope the House will not give a Second Reading to this Bill is the constitutional ground. I look at the date of the next proceedings after the milk case, and I find that the proceedings started on the 18th July, 1922, and the date of the introduction of this Bill was the 1st August, 1922. Are those persons who started on the 18th July, 1922, to be denied the fruits of that judgment on any moral or legal ground? My feeling is that we ought not to go beyond the Indemnity Act of 1920. Five years after the termination of the War, more than three years after the passing of an Indemnity Act—which, I think I am right in saying, went even further than any other Indemnity Act—to embark now upon some further proceedings is very unwise and very dangerous. Something has been said about the Statute of
Limitations. If I remember aright, I think it was said by the hon. and learned Member for the Hartlepools that no person can now institute proceedings, and no person can have the benefit of proceedings which he has not instituted before the 31st August, 1922, and I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade for some details, particularly on the figures of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing, to show how much, in fact, the Crown will have to pay if this Bill does not become law.
I am rather interested in the language of the Preamble of the Bill, which says that these matters have been called in question, and, therefore, are in doubt. If one did not know the facts, one would think this was a Bill for settling doubts which existed. There is no doubt about it. The Bill could have said, in order to make it perfectly plain to those who have not looked further into this matter, that it is a Bill to set aside judgments of the House of Lords, and not to settle any question which has been called in doubt. I cannot think that those persons who paid these? impositions voluntarily can have any claim to repayment. If they paid voluntarily, they must stand by that or there would be no need whatever for this Bill. This matter has been very carefully considered from the constitutional point of view by the Law Society, of which I am a member, and by many other law societies throughout the country. I hope the House will support the Amendment. There was an Amendment on the Paper in the names of myself, the right hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull), and the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) which will not be reached. I hope the House will not afford the Bill a Second Reading.

Sir COURTENAY MANSEL: If the Government succeed in obtaining the concurrence of this House in the principle of this Bill, I think a far greater proof than the perfectly orthodox Budget will be given to the country of the progress of Socialism. I am sorry the President of the Board of Trade has justified this Bill by treating it as a legacy from previous Governments instead of putting it forward as a legacy from the opportunists of the last Government but one and the inconsequence of the last Government. He had better treat it as what it is, a very
necessary instrument for bringing to pass a permanent Socialist Government. Before you can establish a permanent Socialist Government in this country, you must necessarily trample underfoot the rights of the individual. I hope this House will treat this measure as a matter of principle and not in the spirit of compromise. It is one of the besetting sins of this country, not to be thorough in its personal right, but willing to compromise-There is no compromise possible. There is no harmonic mean between justice and injustice. What is it that you are contemplating now? It is a gross act of injustice to many individuals. It is as gross an act of injustice as the first Clause of the Evictions Bill.

Mr. DICKSON: This is the great attack of the Liberal party opening.

Sir C. MANSEL: We can rest our attack on no better case. These exactions have been made by officials. They have been extorted from unwilling payees. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) asserted that they were made by the consent of the parties concerned. I can give the House an instance to the contrary. In January, 1919, a meeting was held at Dublin of persons interested in the hide trade, and the question was put to the Controller there as to what would be done by him in case the trade did not accept the imposition, and the answer was that they would receive no allocation of hides. In the case of some individuals who refused to accept the imposition, that course was followed, and their livelihood taken away from them. Was that a case of free will? I ask the House to consider to where this proposal leads. It is leading from the policy that has ruled in this country for hundreds of years; from the policy that is English to the policy that is foreign and continental. You are asking the House to establish the foreign system of droits a'admimstrer, the system under which you place the official above the law. You are right to ask for it, for it is the necessary foundation on which you wish to build up your Government. [An HON. MEMBER: "Come over to this side."] I hope that on the side of justice both sides of this House will be united. You are asked to abandon the most necessary part of your duties and to allow the imposition of taxes
without the consent of Parliament. If you do, if this House consents to that course of action let them throw down the statue of Hampden which we have in St. Stephen's Hall, for it will have become a mere meaningless ornament, no longer the symbol of great principles and noble liberties nobly vindicated in the past. Cast down that statue and set up instead the statue of our new master, Karl Marx. Yes, if the House injures its honour by passing such a measure as this I am thankful to say the ground we are treading on here is not the site of the old house where Hampden, Elliot and Sidney trod! If their spirit has deserted us we are no longer worthy of the traditions of the past. This Act is the gravest attack which has been made on the liberty of the subject, and I hope the House will give it that doom that it deserves.

11.0 P.M.

Viscount WOLMER: We have listened to three or four speeches against this Bill, and I do not think I would be acting rightly if I did not say a word in support of it. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) had had anything to do with Government Departments, if he had been in any part of the Board of Trade or any Department of the Government that was faced with this question, he would have come to exactly the same conclusion that the Government, faced with it, came to. This is a Bill not only of this Government, but of the last Government, and the Government before. If the Liberal party had been in power during the period they would have had to bring in an exactly similar Bill. A great deal has been said about the evil of retrospective legislation. Nobody hates retrospective legislation more than I do. I yield to no one, even to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, in all his Conservative prejudices. But what is the situation? In the first place it is this: that you are dealing with war legislation. An hon. Member on these Benches said that some of the Acts that are going to be whitewashed by this Bill were committed after the Armistice. That is perfectly true; but everyone of them was committed under Statutes passed during the War. I am prepared to agree that in ordinary times it is a bad plan for this House to get into the way of legislating hastily and in a slovenly manner so that it is subsequently
found that Acts of Parliament do not mean what their authors or Parliament intended them to mean. We ought to be exceedingly careful on that point. But we all know that during the War a great deal of legislation was hurriedly passed and some of it badly drafted, and there is much to be said for an Act of Parliament in which you are legislatively putting right matters which Parliament did not intend. In this case Parliament during the War deliberately set up a series of controls, and Parliament armed them with certain powers, and very drastic powers they were. The controllers, in pursuance of their powers, proceeded to issue licences. Everybody at the time thought that these licences were within the powers of the controllers to issue, and nobody questioned it until an enterprising individual took it to the Law Courts. There is not the slightest doubt that Parliament intended the controllers to have these powers. I could quote passages from the OFFICIAL REPORT showing that Minister after Minister said, in answer to questions and in debate, that these licences had been issued in pursuance of this or that regulation under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and the House was fully conversant with what was being done.
From the nature of the case it was necessary that the controllers should have these powers. Therefore all we are doing here is simply ratifying what Parliament, during the War, undoubtedly intended, and any impartial man who studies the OFFICIAL REPORT must come to the conclusion that that was what Parliament intended during the War, and Parliament did the best thing that could be done in the circumstances. An hon. Member behind me seemed to cast some doubt on the rightfulness of this House considering the equity of the case, but that is what the House of Commons is for, and it is our duty to consider the broad justice of the case. My right hon Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) and the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. Nesbitt) both asserted that some of the payments in question under this Bill were extorted by Government Departments from unwilling payers. I should very much like to see instances of that sort. Certainly the cases which have been given in this
Debate were not instances of that kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing gave instances of the Marshall Shipbuilding Company which wanted to sell a ship for £134,000, but may I point out that other companies were not allowed to sell their ships, and why should this company be allowed to sell at an enormous profit without paying a big fee. That course would not have been fair to the other shipowners, or to the shipping industry as a whole. We were not able to allow shipowners to sell their ships, but licences were given in special cases where there were good reasons why the ships should be sold, and it is only just and fair that a good fee should be paid in respect of this particular case. Whether the Marshall Company made a profit or a loss out of the transaction is not material to the point. The point is that they wanted to make this bargain, they were perfectly willing to pay £20,000 for the privilege of selling a ship that was worth on the foreign market £134,000, and they need not have paid that money if they did not wish to sell the ship.

Mr. JOWITT: May I point out to the Noble Lord that if money is paid voluntarily you cannot recover in any case, but only if it is paid under protest?

Viscount WOLMER: I will not dispute the legal point with the hon. and learned Member, but I defy him or any other Member to point to a single case where money was paid except in return for a special privilege that was given by a Government Department.

Mr. E. BROWN: Would the Noble Lord say the same of milk?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, certainly I would.

Mr. BROWN: To a gathering of milk producers?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think that the plaintiffs in the milk case had a case in equity at all. I think they were merely taking advantage of a loophole in the law, which no doubt some clever lawyer had put them up to. I do not think their position was a just one, and if it had not been for the fact that a judicial decision had been given in their favour there would have been no reason for Parliament making a special exemption in their case. In the matter of equity
their case is exactly on all fours with the other cases under this Bill. Therefore, it does seem to me that no substantial injustice is done, and there is also this point, that a very large sum is at stake. The hon. and learned Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt), and, I think, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, said that only a small number of cases would mature if this Bill were not passed, because all the other cases were covered by the Indemnity Act. I have, however, heard that view questioned by lawyers as eminent as the hon. and learned Member. I am not a lawyer, and cannot give an opinion.

Mr. JOWITT: I did not cite that as my own opinion. It has been decided by one of His Majesty's Judges.

Viscount WOLMER: Again I cannot argue the matter with the hon. and learned Member, and I am not going to presume to do so, but I have heard that view questioned, and sometimes Judges do have their decisions upset. I would, however, put this point to the hon. and learned Member. What does he think of a man who enters into a bargain with the Government, and who, in return for a privilege which the Controller has given him, has paid the Controller a licence—

Mr. JOWITT: Under protest!

Viscount WOLMER: Under protest, if you like, but has paid it voluntarily under protest. [Laughter.] I invite hon. Members opposite to point to a single instance where this money was paid except in return for a special privilege which was granted, and a man need not have paid the money if be had not wanted the privilege. He may have been advised that it was legally worth his while to make the protest when he paid the money, but he did pay the money voluntarily, although he may have made the protest. I say, that a man who does that, and then brings a successful action against the Government, is no more entitled to the consideration of this House than the man who has made his bargain with the Government Department at the time, has paid his fee and got his privilege, and has stuck to it and not tried to get the money back afterwards. I do not think it is an attitude that this House ought to encourage, that subjects should pay
fees for privileges and then, through a defect in the law, should try to get those fees, back.

Mr. SYDNEY JONES: Speaking as a shipowner, I am, perhaps, chiefly interested in paragraph 7 of the Schedule; but I think I can speak for all concerned when I say that none of us have any wish to ride off on a mere technicality. This has been proved by the fact, as regards shipowners, that out of a large number of claims which might have been made before the Statute of Limitations came into force, only five writs, I think, were actually issued. What I object to in this Bill is that it brings in what, I hope, is a new and a very vicious principle of legislation, in that it sets aside the cases which have already been decided in the Law Courts. It does not make very much difference in what Court a case has been decided. When a case has actually been decided, that judgment should stand. If the Government had excluded these cases, I confess my opposition to the Bill would have been considerably modified, because I might have considered it merely one of the inevitable disagreeable consequences of the Great War. I would have preferred that the Government had withdrawn the Bill. As it is, I hope the Second Reading will be defeated. It is quite true that certain additional costs may fall on the taxpayer as part of the cost of winding up the War, but I think the taxpayer would rather have that than have the law upset as it is proposed to upset it. I think, in short, it is a bad thing in any case for the Government to attempt to defend itself against illegalities which it has committed; but it is very much worse that it should attempt to revise judgments of Courts. By doing so, they will upset the faith of our people in the sanctity and inviolability of the law, and they will open the door to very many objectionable and dangerous Acts in the future. I, therefore, hope that the Bill will be defeated, not because I do not want to help the Government or any Government to get over the difficulties caused by the War, but simply and solely because of the very dangerous principle which will be involved in it.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I have been a little amused when I have heard of the voluntary payments made by the milk
people, the shipowners and the brewers, and those other people who contributed more or less to our discomfort during the War. [Interruption.] There used in old days to be a principle that no man could be tried by a jury unless he voluntarily elected to be so tried. The principle was still a principle until less than a century ago; but it was discovered that sometimes a prisoner who was accused of a particularly heinous crime—for instance, high treason—was not very anxious to be tried either by a jury or at all, so when he was asked, first of all, to plead guilty or not guilty, and then, "How will you be tried? "instead of making the proper reply, "By God and my country," meaning a jury, he refused to reply at all. Then how did they procure his voluntary submission to be tried by a jury? I will tell you. They took him to the prison and laid him on the floor and put upon him a board laid lengthwise, and they put weights upon the board, and from time to time they asked him how he would like to be tried. They put upon him at first, in the words of the old books, as much as he could bear and afterwards more. I have not the faintest doubt that the voluntary payments made by the brewer, the shipowner, the baker and other people who contributed to our comforts during the War were obtained by the same sort of voluntary means. But for us lawyers hon. Members opposite would never have been here. You would never have had any liberties. The liberties of England were won by the lawyers of England. Make no mistake about that. When you find a rabid Radical like the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt) joining with a fossilised Tory like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield), and then you discover a Tory democrat like myself all in the same camp, fiercely opposed to this monstrous proposition to defeat the decision of the Courts as so what the law of the land is, let the President of the Board of Trade beware. If he is not well enough advised to withdraw this Measure we shall defeat him, and he can make quite certain that if we do not defeat him to-night, in the long run we shall defeat him.

Mr. HARNEY: In effect this Bill, as I understand it, is to justify the Crown in retaining money which it has
illegally extracted. Otherwise it would be meaningless. I take it these moneys are a debt due from the Crown to those by whom they are paid, and a debt is property, and property may have been assigned or mortgaged, and the Ministers of the Crown come forward and say, "Whatever may have happened with reference to this property, we desire to take it back from those who now own it." The curious feature is this, that although there has been a good deal of litigation, whenever the Crown wins nothing is said; but if the Crown happens to lose, then Parliament has to come in and reverse the decision of the Court. We have had a good deal of retrospective legislation in the last two years, and there is one very notable feature. Whenever the legislation was to put right a wrong or an error committed by an individual, the position was sacrosanct; the decision of the Courts could not be reversed, but where the Government is concerned, we are apparently to apply a different rule.
Let me give the House two well-known illustrations. There was the case of Sutters v. Briggs. There we had for nearly 100 years legislators, lawyers, laymen, all thinking that bets might lawfully be paid by cheque. But after a century some subtle lawyer discovered that what everybody thought for that long period of time to be legal was wrong. He fought an action before the Courts, and it was decided in the highest tribunal that technically for these 100 years it was wrong to pay bets by cheque. One would have thought that if ever there was a case where the illegal extraction of money by the bookmaker would have been validated that was one, because everybody had fallen into the mistake, and for three generations it had been the recognised law of the land. Yet what happened? When the House of Lords brought in a Bill to set that error right according to the decision subsequently given by the Courts, they were careful to point out, "We cannot validate backwards. In future it shall be lawful to pay bets by cheque, but those who in the past have done so are to remain liable for repayment of the money." That meant that the bookmakers were liable to the extent of millions of pounds for the repayment of that money.
Take another illustration—[HON. MEMBERS "Divide!"] If hon. Members want
to get home, I do not mind. In the Increase of Bents Bill, it was intended by Parliament that landlords by serving a certain notice should be entitled to an increase of rent. They served that notice. It was the intention of Parliament that that notice should effect its purpose, but it was found by the Courts that through the strict construction of the Act it did not validly entitle the landlord to the increase that was demanded. There was a mistake due to the intricacy of the Act of Parliament, and a delicacy of construction so great that the whole Bench of England were at sixes and sevens on the subject. Yet the last Parliament said "We cannot validate backwards," and the only case in which this payment can be recovered is in what the Attorney-General rightly called the psychological case where the man thought that he ought not to pay. Even in this particular instance we have not a mistake a century old, as in the betting case. We have not a mistake of an intricate and difficult Act of Parliament. We have an error made on one of the fundamental laws' of the country, and, as I think, a law so fundamental and so well-known that if a schoolboy failed to explain it he would be "plucked" at the most preliminary of examinations. And we are told because Ministers of the Crown illegally extract money in defiance of the law they are able to set it right by an Act of Parliament. Why? It is true, as was said by the noble Lord who spoke a few minutes ago, that the Ministers of the Crown could have done rightfully that which they have done wrongfully. But after all, it is a question of some principle that, when we set up Courts of Justice to decide what are the rights of parties, after a piece of legislation has passed this House, it is bringing into contempt those Courts' when a Ministry for the time being says, "We are the parties who are affected by the adverse decision. We are in the seats of power, and we will apply a protecting ægis to ourselves which we refuse to apply to private individuals."

Mr. WEBB: I wish to say a few words in reply to the speech to which we have just listened. This Bill does not seek to give any retrospective validity further back than the date at which express and deliberate notice was given on behalf of the Government that legislation would be
introduced. It is a very common procedure in this House to date legislation back to the date of the notice which is very often given of the introduction of the Bill. In this case the Bill followed a few days after. There is no retrospective legislation in this matter. Consequently a great deal of the heroic speech which we have just heard does not apply. In the next place there is no question of the money having been exacted in the manner referred to by the hon. and learned Member opposite or in any other manner, when it is remembered that all the prohibitions, all the orders, all the sweeping regulations of the controllers were legal and that what happened was that partly for public convenience, partly for individual profit when he conceded to certain sections of the community certain privileges, etc., in reference to those prohibitions, then in order to prevent those individuals thus privileged making a profit at the expense of the community the controller asked that a licence fee should be paid. Undoubtedly, the coercion was there, but that was legal. The privilege that, was

given was also legal. They were asked to pay a small proportion of the profits they had made at the expense of the rest of the community. It is not a question of protecting the Government, but of protecting the revenue and the taxpayers of the country. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, to start counting before you, Sir, put the Question a second time. I understand that counting has been in progress in one of the Lobbies before you put the Question the second time.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am informed that is so. Nobody will be any the worse, as I shall see that the full time is allowed before the Lobbies are closed.

The House divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 101.

Division No. 65.]
AYES.
[11.35 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Forestier-Walker, L.
Lee, F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Loverseed, J. F.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Lunn, William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.
Gillett, George M.
March, S.


Baker, W. J.
Gosling, Harry
Marley, James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Banton, G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Maxton, James


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Groves, T.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Black, J. W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Major Sir A. C. (Honiton)


Bondfield, Margaret
Harland, A.
Murray, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Broad, F. A.
Haycock, A. W.
Nixon, H.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
O'Grady, Captain James


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Oliver, George Harold


Clarke, A.
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfield)
Palmer, E. T.


Clayton, G. C.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Climie, R.
Hillary, A. E.
Perry, S. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Philipson, Mabel


Cope, Major William
Hudson, J. H.
Purcell, A. A.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Huntingfield, Lord
Raine, W.


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Raynes, W. R.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jephcott, A. R.
Rentoul, G. S.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Dickson, T.
Kennedy, T.
Romeril, H. G.


Dukes, C.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Duncan, C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lansbury, George
Scrymgeour, E.


Egan, W. H.
Law, A.
Seely, Rt. Hn. Maj. Gen. J. E. B. (I. of W.)


England, Colonel A.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Leach, W.
Shepperson, E. W.


Sherwood, George Henry
Thurtle, E.
Westwood, J.


Shinwell, Emanuel
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Tout, W. J.
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snell, Harry
Varley, Frank B.
Windsor, Walter


Spence, R.
Viant, S. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Stamford, T. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Stephen, Campbell
Warrender, Sir Victor
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. O. (Rhondda)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Sturrock, J. Leng
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney



Sullivan, J.
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Sutton, J. E.
Weir, L. M.
Mr. John Robertson and Mr. Allen


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wells, S. R.
Parkinson.


NOES.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Owen, Major G.


Alstead, R.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hobhouse, A. L.
Phillipps, Vivian


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hodge, Lieut.-Colonel J. P. (Preston)
Raffan, P. W.


Barclay, R. Noton
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Raffety, F. W.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Rathbone, Hugh R.


Becker, Harry
Huntingfield, Lord
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Rea, W. Russell


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Remer, J. R.


Bonwick, A.
Kedward, R. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Keens, T.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford).


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ropner, Major L.


Burman, J. B.
Laverack, F. J.
Royle, C.


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Linfield, F. C.
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Cassels, J. D.
Livingstone, A. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
McCrae, Sir George
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Macfadyen, E.
Simpson, J. Hope


Chilcott, Sir Warden
McLean, Major A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Maden, H.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst)


Darbishire, C. W.
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Deans, Richard Storry
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Dixey, A. C.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Stewart, Maj. R. S. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dodds, S. R.
Meller, R. J.
Tattersall, J. L.


Duckworth, John
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dunn, J. Freeman
Millar, J. D.
Thornton, Maxwell, R.


Falconer, J.
Mitchell, R. M. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Finney, V. H.
Mond, H.
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Franklin, L. B.
Morris, R. H.
Wintringham, Margaret


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morse, W. E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Gates, Percy
Moulton, Major Fletcher
Woodwork, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)



Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nesbitt, Robert C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Mr. Leif Jones and Sir Herbert


Harney, E. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Nield.


Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Webb.]

Orders of the Day — PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.